Digital Sensoriality: The Neolithic Figurines from Koutroulou ......Digital Sensoriality: The...

Digital Sensoriality: The Neolithic Figurines fromKoutroulou Magoula, Greece

Costas Papadopoulos, Yannis Hamilakis, Nina Kyparissi-Apostolika& Marta Díaz-Guardamino

The image-based discourse on clay figurines that treated them as merely artisticrepresentations, the meaning of which needs to be deciphered through variousiconological methods, has been severely critiqued and challenged in the past decade.This discourse, however, has largely shaped the way that figurines are depicted inarchaeological iterations and publications, and it is this corpus of images that has inturn shaped further thinking and discussion on figurines, especially since very fewpeople are able to handle the original, three-dimensional, physical objects. Building onthe changing intellectual climate in figurine studies, we propose here a framework thattreats figurines as multi-sensorial, affective and dynamic objects, acting withindistinctive, relational fields of sensoriality. Furthermore, we situate a range of digital,computational methods within this framework in an attempt to deprive them of theirlatent Cartesianism and mentalism, and we demonstrate how we have applied them tothe study of Neolithic figurines from the site of Koutroulou Magoula in Greece. Weargue that such methodologies, situated within an experiential framework, not onlyprovide new means of understanding, interpretation and dissemination, but, mostimportantly, enable researchers and the public to explore the sensorial affordances andaffective potential of things, in the past as well as in the present.

Introduction

Although the world is three-dimensional, archaeo-logical artefacts and their properties such as colour,texture and geometry, which are crucial for under-standing and interpretation, are turned into flat, sta-tic, two-dimensional productions by conventionalrecording techniques. Field notes, drawings and mul-tiple types of photography, we often assume, attemptto record the information gained from the materialtraces in the field and preserve a ‘record’ whichwill act as a mnemonic reference of the process offieldwork. But in fact, these recording processesand devices do something else. They produce anew field assemblage (cf. Hamilakis in press), amaterial assemblage that does not represent

faithfully and accurately the material realitiesencountered in the field, but rather brings into exist-ence new material realities which evoke (rather thanrecord), more or less, the field processes and thematerial traces encountered there. Moreover, theserecording devices more often than not operate withina mentalist, Cartesian framework, and as such theydo not do justice to the material and sensorial dimen-sions of things; they thus translate features that haveform, texture and colour, and are experienced by allour bodily senses, into a flat surrogate, a sensoriallyimpoverished assemblage. The flattening of archaeo-logical evidence can be observed not only in the out-puts of recording, e.g. a rendering of a structuralfeature, or an artefact, but also in the ways that inter-pretations are crafted in conventional research and

Cambridge Archaeological Journal 29:4, 625–652 © 2019 McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. This is an Open Access article, distributed

under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which

permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written

permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.

doi:10.1017/S0959774319000271 Received 4 Sep 2018; Accepted 28 Mar 2019; Revised 11 Feb 2019

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 03 Sep 2020 at 17:53:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271

https://www.cambridge.org/core

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

publication media. The process of recording, how-ever, has a profound sensorial character, for examplewhen rubbing or even tasting the soil to identify itscomposition, positioning the body at awkwardangles to photograph a context, and handling anobject to identify its subtle surface details.Nevertheless, this sensoriality is absent in most con-ventional outputs of the recording process.

Clay figurines have, until recently, been treatedas images (e.g. Lesure 2011; cf. recent studies dis-cussed below), as artistic depictions whose meaningneeds to be deciphered through various iconologicalmethods. As such, they were—and in many cases arestill—rendered and represented as two-dimensional,finished and static entities. Their formal qualities, e.g.size, decoration, bodily features and proportions,and so on, took priority over, say, material processes,technologies of making and unmaking, post-production modification, circulation, deposition anddiscard.

Yet, as recent studies have shown, clay figurineswere continuously made and unmade: they wereintentionally fragmented, burnt, reshaped andre-introduced into circulation (see e.g. Chapman2000; Chapman & Gaydarska 2007; Meskell 2017;also see below). For past people, these were three-dimensional clay objects (or subjects), in constantflux, meant to be engaged with multi-sensorially:handled, interfered with, interacting with humanbodies, and with other entities, such as architecturalfeatures (buildings, walls, post-holes, etc.), otherportable objects, such as house models, water, fire,and so on (cf. Farbstein 2013 on Palaeolithic portableart). Although this dominant, image-based discoursehas been challenged by several studies in the last dec-ade (see below), it has largely shaped the way theyare depicted in archaeological iterations and publica-tions, and it is this corpus of images that has in turnshaped further thinking and discussion on figurines,especially since very few people are able to handlethe original, three-dimensional, physical objects.

Considering the changing framework in figur-ine studies, from one that treats them as images toanother that considers them as multidimensionalentities, this paper discusses the application of com-putational imaging to the Neolithic figurines fromthe site of Koutroulou Magoula in Greece. It arguesthat such methodologies not only provide newmeans of understanding, interpretation and dissem-ination, but, most importantly, enable us to studyartefacts as three-dimensional material objects thatpossess dynamic biographies, have undergone a ser-ies of transformations, and carry affective import andsignificance, in the past as well as in the present.

However, in order to achieve such a potential,these methodologies need to be deployed within anexperiential, multi-sensorial framework. In the firstpart of the paper, we will problematize and critiquefigurine studies that emphasize purely visual, static,two-dimensional aspects of the artefacts, whilehighlighting recent work that considers their multi-sensory, embodied and evocative nature. In this con-text we will discuss the potential of computationalframeworks which foreground the synaesthetic andmulti-sensorial character of vision, to explore the sen-sorial affordances of digital, three-dimensionalobjects. Finally, we will discuss our case studiesthat exemplify the under-explored sensorial dimen-sion of the methods, and propose a novel way ofexperiencing material culture sensorially and affec-tively through the lenses of the digital. This articleis not meant to be a presentation of the corpus ofclay figurines from Koutroulou Magoula, materialwhich is still under study.

Towards sensorial digital archaeologies

This paper is situated within a recent call for a shiftaway from the ocularcentrism of archaeological prac-tice (Day 2013; Hamilakis 2002; 2013; 2017;Hamilakis et al. 2002; Thomas 2008), and theemphasis on an abstract, isolated and disembodiedsense of vision, which has largely shaped the waythat archaeological traces and objects have been trea-ted and the associated narratives constructed, inolder and more recent studies. In the case of figur-ines, such ocularcentrism has rendered figurinesmostly as flat images and acorporeal artistic depic-tions. Within this stylistic schema, the presence orabsence of certain formal features, such as sexualorgans, for example, has led to decontextualized,cross-cultural interpretations and universal under-lying rules (e.g. female goddess, fertility cults,male/female duality, etc.; see e.g. the work ofGimbutas 1974; 1991). This is also evidenced in theway the techniques used for their representation,mainly photography and drawing, have beendeployed.

More often than not, in these Cartesian render-ings, geometries, shapes, textures and colours aretransformed into flattened and conventionalized ver-sions ruled by a static, two-dimensional perspective.It is well known that photography, rather than beingan objective mode of representation that relies onautomation and chemistry, reflects what camerasare technically capable of capturing as well as theoperators’ choices and intentions; it materializes acertain historically and socially situated gaze. For

Costas Papadopoulos et al.

626


https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271



example, skimming through Orfanidi’s (2015) e-pub-lication Interpretation of Neolithic Figurine Art (inGreek), it is noticeable that figurines are mainly trea-ted as artistic productions that present certain typo-logical features. The images, although abundantand in colour, only capture the viewpoint that high-lights the formal features under discussion (e.g. hair,noses, breasts, etc.), and as a result, they only have asecondary, illustrative role, failing to foreground thefigurines’ material and sensorial qualities, thedynamic processes that resulted in their formation,and their affective impact.

Similarly to the fetishization of objectifying,documentary photography, drawings have alsobeen treated as a ‘valuable social currency’(Bateman 2006, 80) in archaeology. This notion wassupported by early English archaeological practice,where both Petrie (1904, 114–15) and Pitt Rivers(Piggott 1965, 174) were arguing that a site can bestbe described by illustrations, and secondarily bytext, to let the readers make their own decisionsand use text only to coordinate their thoughts.Although drawings are considered objective sourcesof information, probably because of the analoguemedia used in their production, they constitute inter-pretations, they depend on individual skills and deci-sions about what to capture and how (Morgan &Wright 2018). Leibhammer (2018) discusses the‘birthing mother goddess’ found in Çatalhöyük,and the way that James Mellaart used ‘“the object-ive” graphic conventions of science to convince view-ers of what was not really there’. Apart fromelements related to reconstructed features of the fig-urine, e.g. the head, Leibhammer particularly exam-ines the ways that light and shadow have beenmanipulated in the published drawings to reinforceMellaart’s interpretation of the figurine as a MotherGoddess who gives birth to a son. For example, des-pite her posture not resembling a birthing position,and although the clay lump does not have the fea-tures of a baby coming out of a womb, shading inthe drawings makes a rather amorphous piece ofclay look like a rounded head with facial features,such as eyes and nose.

It becomes apparent that the three-dimensionalqualities of figurines which enable corporeal, multi-sensorial, and kinaesthetic experiences are mostlyobscured by conventional, mentalist representationalrenderings. As a result, the performative and inter-active processes of making, using, breaking, burning,discarding and depositing figurines are reduced to anabstract and disembodied aesthetic: appreciation oftwo-dimensional artistic forms (for further critique,see Bailey 2014a; Meskell 2015). Photographs and

drawings can, of course, evoke three-dimensionalityand sensoriality, so it is not the medium per sewhich is the problem, but the framework withinwhich it is used, and the ways that such mimetic tech-nologies are deployed (cf. Morgan & Wright 2018). Acommon practice in drawings of small finds is todepict only the facets that exemplify typological fea-tures and manufacturing processes, such as incisionsand pigments, thus depriving viewers of the abilityto experience the original object as well as the newobject-drawing as tactile, three-dimensional entitieswhich are constituted relationally within certain sen-sorial fields shaped by human and non-human actors,by light and by labour and skill. In the case of theKoutroulou Magoula figurines, the drawing processtakes place at the same time and alongside all otherrecording processes and is in constant interactionwith them. The outcome is the result of a constantinterpretative dialogue involving the whole studyteam. The original pencil drawings and the digitalillustrations were refined when our digital methodsrevealed features that were not identified in an earlierstage. In addition to emphasizing the figurines’ mul-tiple facets and subtle details, we have attempted toprovide a sense of three-dimensionality, tactility,depth and interaction with the light, by using, forexample, a combination of shading and varying linestrokes (Fig. 1). Although in this paper we focus onthe power of three-dimensionality, texture and colourto provide a framework for discussing the sensorialand evocative qualities of artefacts, we believe thatthree-dimensional methods should be considered incombination with established two-dimensional ones,as they open up the perceptual and conceptual poten-tial of visualization.

In this paper, we explore digital archaeology asa physical prosthetic that provides ‘strands ofresearch, knowledge and perception’ (Chrysanthiet al. 2012, 9) and focus on applications that, despitetheir vision-centred basis, have the potential toadvance the discussion on sensoriality by fore-grounding three-dimensional properties and evokingcorporeal, multisensorial and kinaesthetic, affectiveexperiences (for a recent discussion on sensoryengagements in archaeological/artistic practice, seeGant & Reilly 2017). However, we do not intend torefer to prosthetics that attempt to simulate isolatedsenses, such as the virtual cocoon (Chalmers &Zányi 2009), a virtual-reality helmet that stimulatedsenses by using devices that could generate sound,smell, taste, various temperatures and so on, or theDead Man’s Nose (Eve 2017a), a prototype thatemits different smells according to the location ofthe user. Although some of these, and especially

Digital Sensoriality

627


https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271



Eve’s embodied GIS approach within a MixedReality framework (Eve 2017b; 2018), provide abasis for integrating sensorial flows into a dynamicwhole, we believe that such approaches do not dojustice to the complex processes of experience andperception, and as noted above, treat sensoriality asa matter of bodily organs and isolated interactiondevoid of affectivity, within a model of exterior stim-uli and interior cognitive processing (see Hamilakis2013, 106–8, for a critique).

A significant amount of work has focused on 3Dsimulations and quantitative analyses of ancientenvironments to explore social, cultural and symbolicdimensions of the past by assuming vision to be theprincipal modality that shaped past experiences (seee.g. Opitz 2017; Paliou et al. 2011; Papadopoulos &Earl 2014). Experiments with sound modelling (seee.g. Díaz-Andreu & García Benito 2015; Murphyet al. 2017) or a combination of vision and sound(e.g. Paliou & Knight 2013) have also been con-ducted. Despite the obvious interpretative value ofsuch approaches, we ought to emphasize that inthe theoretical framework proposed here, theresponse of a present-day user to a 3D (re)construc-tion mediated via a computer monitor (or any otherimage generating device) and the translation ofspatial experience into pixels cannot account forthe synaesthetic, kinaesthetic, corporeal andaffective experience that the dwellers of those

spaces had in the past. As we have noted elsewhere(Papadopoulos et al. 2015), such approaches areopen-ended and speculative experiments which areinherently limited by their implied, often Cartesian,modernist theoretical assumptions and their relianceon the western sensorium.

Advances in tools and methods for 3D digitiza-tion, including the affordability of hardware andthe accuracy of computational algorithms for image-based reconstructions, have democratized the pro-cess of recording archaeological artefacts. In recentyears, large institutions, including the BritishMuseum and the Smithsonian, have not only devel-oped a robust 3D digitization programme of theircollections, but have also made available (and inmany cases downloadable, and thus 3D printable)many of their scans, using online publishing plat-forms such as Sketchfab (https://sketchfab.com/)or the bespoke Smithsonian X 3D (https://3d.si.edu/). Such broad implementation of 3D artefactmodelling has already started transforming archaeo-logical practice, posing a series of epistemologicaland ethical issues, such as social value in relationto the democratization of production (Jeffrey 2015),transparency and authenticity (Rabinowitz 2015),biases and subjectivities (Garstki 2017), as well aspaperless archaeology (Morgan & Wright 2018).

Many 3D recording projects have also imple-mented scanning and imaging methods to capture

Figure 1. Figurine 2009/TH1-19. Multi-faceted digital illustration (after a pencil drawing) showing subtle surfacedetails, such as fingerprints and brush strokes. (Illustration: Kalliope Theodoropoulou.)


628


https://sketchfab.com/

https://sketchfab.com/

https://3d.si.edu/

https://3d.si.edu/

https://3d.si.edu/

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271



detailed morphological aspects of artefacts of varioussizes and materials and use these for further analysis,from fingerprint identification and extraction in clayoil-lamps (Lapp & Nicoli 2014) and cuneiform tablets(Mara et al. 2010) to the identification of processes ofmaking, including erasure and reworking in rock art(Díaz-Guardamino et al. 2015; Pitts et al. 2014) andportable art (Jones & Díaz-Guardamino 2019; Joneset al. 2015; Milner et al. 2016). These methods havealso enabled the detailed recording of previouslyinaccessible artefacts, for example those in under-water environments (Selmo et al. 2017), or dispersedin different labs and archaeological collections (Katz2017). More advanced (but less affordable) methods,such as Computed Tomography that enables 3Ddensitometric analysis of structures, have also beenapplied to various artefacts, including coins (Mileset al. 2016), portable Palaeolithic art (Bello et al.2013) and clay figurines (Applbaum & Applbaum2002; Farbstein & Davies 2017). Apart from archaeo-logical interpretations, these methods have alsoenhanced conventional conservation strategies, forexample by identifying decay, previous repairs andreconstructions, and taking preventive conservationmeasures (Kotoula 2015; 2017).

The ease of producing 3D models and theaffordability of consumer-level 3D printers and 3Dprinting bureaus have created the necessary condi-tions for the adoption of additive manufacturing inarchaeological research, museum exhibition, restor-ation and outreach (Balletti et al. 2017), movingfrom the analogue to the digital and back again(Jeffrey 2015; Sloan 2012; cf. ‘phygital nexus’ inGant & Reilly 2017). This aligns with a recent callin museum studies to place emphasis on handlingand multisensory experiences (see e.g. Dudley 2012;Howes 2014; Levent & Pascual-Leone 2014; Pye2007) and falls within the recent Maker Movementthat stresses the importance of making as a form ofcritical thinking, problem-solving and reflection(Halverson & Sheridan 2014; Hsu et al. 2017; Reschet al. 2018). 3D-printing applications have focusedon issues of accessibility in museum contexts (seee.g. Wilson 2018), as well as teaching and outreach(Katz 2017; Pollalis et al. 2018). On the other hand,experimental studies and studies of proofs-of-concept have primarily addressed issues similar tothose discussed in the context of traditional replicas;for example, how handling and manipulation of 3Dprintouts affect our perceptive experiences in relationto conventional ways of seeing objects in adisplay case, on a computer monitor, or by usingstereoscopic and haptic devices (see e.g. DiGiuseppantonio Di Franco et al. 2015; 2016;

Williams 2017). Although 3D printing is still at itsearly stages, especially in heritage contexts, theoriza-tion has started moving beyond the concept ofreplica making, addressing the key question ofauthenticity (Jones et al. 2017) and posing grandchallenges for archaeological practice, includingthe rematerialization of archaeological featuresunearthed in the field (Beale & Reilly 2017; see alsoReilly et al. 2016).

In the context of virtual reality and digital (re)construction approaches to archaeology, Friemanand Gillings (2007) have aptly argued that the ‘meth-odological tail has been firmly wagging the dog’,with critical discussion and evaluation taking placeafter the applications, resulting in a methodologicallyadvanced but under-theorized field. This techno-logical fetishism (Huggett 2004), dictated by theaffordability of the methods (especially in the lastfew years, where everybody can create a 3D modeland print at home a replica of a cultural heritage arte-fact), has set the agenda in digital archaeology, there-fore, establishing a view that methods precede theoryand that theorization comes after the mastering ofmethods (but see Díaz-Guardamino & Morgan2019). This is also the case with the majority of theprojects mentioned above, which may providenovel interpretative means of analysing material cul-ture, but the emphasis is placed on the integration ofdigital tools in conventional archaeological reason-ing, the development of the methods and the visualenhancement of geometries, textures and colours.As a consequence, the sensorial and affective pro-cesses and entanglements that shaped, transformedand animated such material culture, and the onesthat are engendered by it, remain neglected. In thispaper, we establish an exploratory theoretical frame-work aimed at evoking past sensoriality rather than(re)constructing, simulating, or visually enhancingit. In so doing, we also encourage an exploration ofthe sensorial affordances of the digital in the present.

Figurine studies and sensoriality

Bailey, in his pioneering work on prehistoric figur-ines (2005), suggested that emphasis should beplaced on their physical properties, i.e. anthropo-morphism, miniaturism and three-dimensionality,to explore how they may have shaped the waysthat makers and users integrated them into theireveryday lives. Especially in relation to three-dimensionality, Bailey identified a paradox (2005,39–41): that is, people holding a figurine can nevercomprehend the object in its entirety, since they arenot able to see two sides at the same time.


629


https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271



Although one could easily argue that this is also truefor the static representations of figurines in conven-tional catalogue-type publications, it seems that inthis early attempt to consider figurines’ three-dimensional properties, Bailey prioritized the visualqualities of objects: ‘spectator’; ‘entire view’; ‘beviewed’, thus neglecting the ‘cheirotic apprehension’as he called it 10 years later (Bailey 2014a). More spe-cifically, in that article titled ‘Touch and the cheiroticapprehension of prehistoric figurines’, Bailey arguesin an apologetic tone:

I realise now that my work has remained within the lim-itations of a visual approach . . . I have become less con-vinced that I had provided any real insight into themechanics of how the emergence and dominance ofthe body within European senses of identity and com-munity had happened in the daily, lived experiences ofNeolithic people . . . I had neglected considering the sig-nificance and powerful consequences of knowingthrough touch. (Bailey 2014a, 32)

Although Bailey acknowledges certain limitations inhis approach, he was actually one of the first scholarswithin figurine studies who encouraged an appreci-ation of the tactile affordances of figurines.Although this may not be clear in his written work,Bailey proposed a powerful way of sensing figurinesby including in his publications images that shiftedaway from the conventional illustrations that domin-ate academic scholarship to the present day. Forexample, images in the front matter of PrehistoricFigurines (Bailey 2005) significantly depart from theconventional photographic representations that iso-late the objects from their makers and (past and pre-sent) users. They depict, for example, a muddy handgrasping a figurine, a palm holding figurine

fragments and a close-up of a figurine in which itseems that equal emphasis is placed on the head ofthe figurine and the contour lines of the fingers hold-ing it, as we did with the figurines from KoutroulouMagoula and the photography of Fotis Ifantidis(Fig. 2) (for further experimentations with the tactil-ity of the figurines, see Bailey 2008). These are situ-ated within Bailey’s early attempts to address theneed for incorporating non-standard practices inthe study of figurines as a means to break free fromconventional archaeological reasoning and interpre-tations. In the book Unearthed (Bailey et al. 2010)that accompanied the exhibition at the SainsburyCentre for Visual Arts at the University of EastAnglia (UK), Bailey further exemplified the needfor creative, artistic and art/archaeology practicesby inviting artists, photographers and philosophersto use figurines to generate unexpected, sometimesdisturbing for conventional archaeological practices,responses, that in turn can provide not only atypicalways for understanding the role and function of fig-urines in the past, but also novel tools and frame-works for studying and engaging with them in thepresent, beyond scientific interpretations and expla-nations (Bailey 2014b; 2017).

Beyond Bailey’s thought-provoking attempts toconsider figurines as artefacts and not ‘as images oras texts’ (Weismantel & Meskell 2014, 234), there isa substantial corpus that explores the materiality offigurines and suggests new ways of experiencingtheir physical and social dimensions. For example,Joyce (1998) has explored bodily practices and theirrepresentation in Pre-Hispanic Central American fig-urines, as well as in a corpus of ‘Playa de losMuertos’-style figurines from Honduras (2003) todiscuss social acts and their relation to theories ofthe body. Meskell and Nakamura (2005) have experi-mented with video documentation of figurines tocapture the artefacts’ three-dimensionality and theexperience of seeing and manipulating them frommultiple perspectives. Mina (2008) has discussedgender construction and social identity—in both theNeolithic and the Bronze Age—challenging estab-lished notions of social organisation in Aegean pre-history. Her work has also highlighted asexualfigurines (Mina 2007) as a distinct category that,although lacking the anatomy of female and malefigurines, embodies gender identity. Nanoglou’swork (e.g. 2005; 2008; 2009) has problematized themateriality of representation, particularly exploringthe affordances of clay and stone in the Neolithic fig-urines from central and northern Greece. Similarly,Weismantel and Meskell (2014) have focused on fig-urines from Çatalhöyük, Turkey, and human effigies

Figure 2. Head of figurine ΑΜΕ230 (Trench Θ, 2006)resting on the fingers of the photographer. (Photograph:F. Ifantidis.)


630


https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271



from Moche, Peru, to discuss the material substancesthey were made of/for and their affordances andmeanings as bodies. Nakamura and Meskell (2009)examined figurine making as performance (see alsoMeskell 2007), while Gheorghiu (2010) employedthe methodological framework of experimentalarchaeology to explore figurine making as anembodied ritual. Sofaer (2015, 21–39) examined therole of hands in the creative process of modellingBronze Age clay figurines from the CarpathianBasin, discussing how different ways of modellingare expressions of embodied thought. Cochraneand Russell (2014) used a series of artistic interven-tions as part of the Theoretical Archaeology Groupconference (TAG 2007) in York and the World ArtForum 2008 in London by placing replicas ofCycladic figurines throughout the places where theevents were held. Their intention was to explore peo-ple’s responses to objects, e.g. by moving, stealing, ordestroying them, and reflect on the (un)intentionalcharacter of figurine making and using. Halperin(2014), on the other hand, studied the life-cycle ofLate Classic Maya figurines (c. 600–900 AD) to explorehow the ideological apparatus of the Maya ‘states’influenced household practices and, in turn, howstates used domestic practices to formulate and dis-seminate their ideologies.

The Oxford Handbook of Figurines (Insoll 2017)also includes chapters from a wide range of spatialand temporal contexts that elaborate on figurines asprocesses (e.g. Meskell 2017), on figurine making asmaterial testimonies (Kuijt 2017) and on the role ofthe corporeality of the human body and somaticexperience in figurine making (Antczak & Antczak2017; Stevenson 2017). Several chapters also dealwith the performative dimension of figurines,especially in relation to their use in/for activitieswith strong sensorial elements (Blomster 2017;Overholtzer 2017; Sears 2017; Stevenson 2017; VellaGregory 2017). More recently, Jiaju Ma (2017) createdan ‘embodiment of my [his] artistic interpretations ofthe Koutroulou Magoula figurines’ by 3D modellingand printing figurine parts that can be assembled inrandom combinations, to demonstrate their puzzlingnature and ambiguous meaning (Fig. 3).

Such approaches fall within the paradigm ofsensory, embodied and evocative archaeologies,which are still in the process of being developed(e.g. Day 2013; Hamilakis 2002; 2013; 2017; Skeates2010). This is not a homogeneous body of work,nor is there a unified approach being advocated inthe literature. Sensoriality can be seen purely as theinvestigation of the sensorial affordances of matter,as the mechanics through which the materiality of

the past generates specific sensorial stimuli, whichcan then be processed by the human body or mindand result in specific experiences, but also knowl-edges and cultural understandings. MacGregor(1999), for example, in an early, important article,has discussed the sensoriality of Scottish carvedstone balls, emphasizing that the understanding ofthe artefacts is ‘dependent on the changing inter-playof the senses as they moved from context to contextof experience’ (1999, 268). In his work, MacGregorused sight and touch combined with motion to assessthe knowledge obtained from the artefacts (e.g. dec-oration, texture) and consequently hypothesize onhow they could have been experienced in theirancient and after-recovery lives. This is an exampleof what can be called the exteriority-interioritymodel, one which sees sensoriality as a matter of sin-gle sensorial modalities, specific organs, and materialas well as mental processes.

The alternative perspective on sensoriality, andone which we advocate here, considers sensorialityas a synaesthetic, experiential and affective processwhich takes placewithin relationalfields,fields of sen-soriality (Hamilakis 2013; in press), spaces in betweenwhich are structured by many and heterogeneousentities: humans, other non-human sentient and livingbeings, things, spaces and landscapes, atmosphericelements, but also memories, and affective bondsand connections. The notion of ‘spaces-in-between’denotes a shift from dualisms and rigid categoriessuch asmind and body, inside and outside, or the per-son and theworld. It rejects the idea that sensoriality isabout the internal processing of external stimuli,received by specific sensory organs. At the sametime, these spaces-in-between constitute ‘sensorialfields’ not as topological, but as relational entities.They are not locality-specific, but are instead multi-local, since the relational field they engender canextend to many places, can bring up connections andassociations throughmemory and other relationships.The sensorialfield does not entail the activation of one,isolated sensorial modality, but rather is synaesthetic.

Affect and affectivity are central to the field ofsensoriality and to our approach here. Affect is aSpinozean and Deleuzian concept which has beenreworked today by a number of cultural theorists(e.g. Massumi 1995), anthropologists (e.g. Stewart2007) and some archaeologists. The clearest defin-ition, and the one closest to our perspective here, isoffered by Seigworth and Gregg (2010, 1):

Affect arises in the midst of in-between-ness: in the capaci-ties to act and to be acted upon . . . Affect . . . is thename we give to those forces—visceral forces beneath,


631


https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271



alongside, or generally other than conscious knowing,vital forces insisting beyond emotion—that can serveto drive us toward movement, toward thought andextension.

Affect, as a noun and as verb, bypasses the subject-object dichotomy and at the same time brings fortha field of sensoriality, a generalized atmospherestructured by sensorial flows and life forces, anatmosphere that cannot be captured by the indivi-dualiszed connotations of the concept of emotion(cf. Massumi 1995).

Affect and the sensorialfield are linked to the con-cept of assemblages, as defined byDeleuzian thinking:entities made of heterogeneous, co-functioning andco-present elements are brought deliberately togetherand cohere to give rise to new becomings. This defin-ition goes beyond the conventional sense of the assem-blage as aggregation of homogeneous entities.Archaeologists have recently started engaging withthe concept of the assemblage (e.g. Hamilakis & Jones2017; Jervis 2018), and while there is a lively andon-going discussion on their nature and properties,we advocate here for sensorial assemblages(Hamilakis 2017). It is the sensorial assemblages in

each context and their mnemonic, affective, multi-temporal and inevitably political nature which enablesensoriality tobeactivated ina synaesthetic andkinaes-thetic manner, not an isolated bodily organ and a dis-tinctive mechanical process (Hamilakis 2017). Withinthis understanding, affect becomes central in sensorial-ity; this is not about individuated emotional reactionsand feelings, either on the part of the present-dayresearcheroron thepart ofpeople in thepast. It is ratherabout a dispersed felt impact, an atmosphere thatenvelops humans and non-human beings, includingthings. Affectivity is engendered when sensorialitycan ‘touch’ us, when the intensity of experiencebecomes such that it disrupts the normal flow of lifeand the established structure of temporality. This sen-sorial framework cannot be accommodated within anobjectivist, distant and universalizing as well as natur-alizing approach. It does not aim at representing orrecreatingpast senses, but at evokingsomeof theaffect-ive energy and power of sensoriality, which is neitherpast nor present, but multi-temporal. The body andthe sensorial andaffective constitutionof the researcherbecome, inevitably, part of this endeavour; as such,reflexivity and an investigation of the researcher’sown sensorial archaeology is a starting point of any

Figure 3. Koutroulou Magoula figurine sculpture project by Jiaju Ma. Heads, bodies and connectors have been modelledand 3D printed. Pieces are held together by magnets and in place by protruding spheres and sockets. (Image courtesy ofJiaju Ma.)


632


https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271



investigation on the senses (Hamilakis 2013). As fordigital archaeology, we view it as yet another materialrealm (Garstki 2017), another domain which is struc-turedbymateriality, sensoriality,memoryandaffectiv-ity, rather than as immaterial and ethereal. As with allmaterial and technological devices, it can expand thesensorial capabilities of humans and produce new sen-sorial, affective fields and new sensorial assemblages,assuming that it avoids the technological determinism,instrumentalism and Cartesianism which often struc-ture its operation.

Computational imaging, 3D scanning technolo-gies and non-destructive analytical methods havealso been applied to figurine assemblages from dif-ferent spatial and temporal contexts to create 3Dmodels for research and teaching (Morris et al.2018), examine manufacturing and production pro-cesses (Applbaum & Applbaum 2002; Delvaux et al.2017; Farbstein & Davies 2017; Kreiter et al. 2014;Pavel et al. 2013), explore figurines (and carvedstone balls) as artefacts-in-process (Jones & Díaz-Guardamino 2019), analyse their chemical compos-ition (Forouzan et al. 2012; Kantarelou et al. 2015),as well as experiment with computational algorithmsthat would enable fragment matching (Kaimaris et al.2011), hypothetical reconstructions (Papantoniouet al. 2012) and the identification, extraction and clas-sification of surface characteristics (Counts et al. 2016;Vassallo 2016). In most cases, digital research hasfocused on 3D documentation and technological fea-tures of figurine making, with little or no discussionabout the potential of the methods to enhance thesensory dimension of the artefacts in comparison toconventional modes of representation. However,recent research has implemented computationaltools that reveal figurine manufacturing methodsand thus contribute to discussions on multi-sensorialand embodied archaeology as they allow us torethink the performative manipulation and forma-tion of clay, and the creation of synaesthetic andkinaesthetic experiences in the process of makingand using figurines.

For example, Pizzeghello et al. (2015) usedcomputed tomography on a sixth-millennium BC

Chalcolithic clay female figurine from the Lakesregion of Turkey to identify the sequence of model-ling with clay ‘lump by lump’ and approach figurinemaking from the perspective of cognitive decisionsthat follow a mental map of the female body. Inthis case, the figurine maker takes a small piece ofclay and starts moulding it with her/his hands.More small pieces, one at a time, are added, rubbedand smoothed on top of each other, gradually trans-forming the wet and cold clay into a miniature

female body. Insoll et al. (2016) applied the samemethod to Koma figurines from Ghana to exploredeliberately made cavities and their possible mean-ing beyond technical reasons, including the insertionof substances and organic materials and/or the offer-ing of libations as a way to enhance their healing orapotropaic properties.

In both cases, despite the potential of themethod and the richness of the material to generatenew lines of inquiry in the context of sensorialflows and synaesthetic and corporeal expressionsand performances, the authors still work within amentalist-cognitivist framework and interpret theresults purely in the context of figurine structureand technical characteristics.

Computational imaging in a sensorial framework

Most of the digital imaging methods discussed earl-ier, as well as those applied to the figurines ofKoutroulou Magoula, deploy photography as thecapturing mechanism. Within a conventional, object-ivist technological framework, photography is seenprimarily as a matter of light which gives substanceto objects and helps the ‘brain’ to encode real-worldinformation and enhance perception (Tarr et al. 1998).We read that we can see a particular object becauseparticles of light bounce on it, and then reach oureyes, which in turn send this information to be deci-phered in the brain, in order to identify its location,movement, form, colour and texture. Light affectsthe perception of texture, since materials and geom-etries behave according to their reflectance propertiesand produce lighting patterns that help observersunderstand the texture properties of objects (seee.g. Chantler 1994; Dong & Chantler 2004). Further,the effects produced by differing illumination, suchas inter-reflections, occlusion, shadowing and shad-ing, influence the perception of texture. It is arguedthat shading, for example, is primarily based on thefact that light comes from a particular angle and isreflected off surfaces in a particular way. Therefore,the way that light points to objects’ surfaces, or isreflected off them because features of their surfaceobstruct the light falling on them, producespatterns of shading which can give valuable informa-tion about three-dimensional surface shapes. Forexample, the texture of an excavated wall wouldlook different in three photographs taken early inthe morning when there is only ambient light, atmidday when sunlight is vertical, and in early even-ing, when the sun is at a low angle.

While this technological and objectivist infor-mation makes sense in some ways, and has its


633


https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271



practical uses in ‘capturing’ things photographically,it is inherently limited as it relies on the mechanical,exteriority-interiority model of sensoriality, dis-cussed and critiqued above. Yet light is only onecomponent of the photographic process, albeit animportant one. Both the etymology of photography,as the writing of light, and early photographic dis-courses, exemplified, for example, by the title of thebook The Pencil of Nature by one of its inventors,Fox Talbot (1844), imagine a neutral technologicalprocess that happens by natural forces alone, thanksto scientific advances. Yet we know all too well thatthis is not the case. Light is an atmospheric condition,and one of the components that shapes a sensorialfield. It is not a matter of a single source, as ambientlight is as important as the direct, natural or artificiallight. Moreover, the photographic process is struc-tured by the sensorial photographic assemblage (cf.Carabott et al. 2015), which includes the things tobe photographed and their specific affordances, thephotographers, the various technological appara-tuses, direct and ambient light, photographic mem-ories and the photographic canon, the affectivity ofthe surroundings and the desire to produce specificrenderings of an object or thing. The inter- andintra-actions amongst the various agents partakingof the relational, sensorial field of photography,including the human actors, shape the photographicoutcomes. The application of these photography-based digital processes at Koutroulou Magoula hasbeen a collective endeavour, and tightly integratedwith all other practices of handling, recording, draw-ing and studying these objects. The corporeal andsensorial experience of handling such objects, andthe affective import that it had on us, informedand even shaped the digital processes. All membersof this study group, including the archaeologist/illustrator Kalliope Theodoropoulou and the archae-ologist/photographer Fotis Ifantidis, workedtogether and conveyed to each other the affectivepower elicited in the process.

In applying a series of digital methods here,which are further extensions of the basic photo-graphic principle, we reject the idea of photographyas an objective procedure that produces afterimagesin a realistic and neutral manner. We opt insteadfor a framework which sees photographing as thebringing together of a specific sensorial assemblage(Hamilakis 2017) in which we ourselves as photogra-phers form a significant component. Our desire toactivate the multi-sensorial affordances of the figur-ines from the site of Koutroulou Magoula, and toenable them to affect us as well as broader audiences,has been a key principle that guided our efforts.

Multi-sensoriality has been central in this col-lective process. The word texture is often associatedwith how objects in the world feel when touched.This is the so-called tactile texture and is only linkedto the tangible feeling of a surface. However, anothertype of texture exists, which is not related to its tactilefeedback to the observer. This is the visual texture,which relies on how observers perceive the surfaceof objects based on factors such as their variation incolour and intensity of light (see e.g. Heller 1989;Landy & Graham 2004; cf. the term haptic visualityin the history of art), and the observer’s own sensor-ial memories and perceptive backgrounds. Colour isalso linked to light, and thus its perception changesunder different illumination. For example, artefactsin museum displays often appear discoloured dueto the choices of light that prioritize preservationover exhibition and visitor experience. Work in medi-eval settings (Devlin et al. 2003) has demonstratedthat decorated and glazed vessels look different interms of colour (as well as shape) when illuminatedfrom different directions and different light sources.Zányi et al. (2007) have also made use ofPolynomial Texture Mapping to observe how the dir-ection of lighting affects the perception of glassmosaics in Byzantine churches. As noted above,our own, non-representational, affective experienceand understanding of the figurines shaped our desireto activate multi-sensoriality and allow texture, size,colour, geometry, technological processes, humantraces and modifications upon the surface, and post-production modifications to be rendered and evokedin the depictions and models we produced: in otherwords, to enable broader audiences to be sensoriallyaffected by the affordances that touched us asresearchers.

The figurines from Koutroulou Magoula, Fthiotida,Greece

Koutroulou Magoula (KM) is located in Fthiotida,central Greece, and its main occupation phase datesto the first two centuries of the sixth millennium BC.This proved to be an extremely well preserved, archi-tecturally elaborate site, the inhabitants of whichshaped its space of habitation through a range ofsubstantial, probably communal works, such as ter-races and perimeter ditches. The excavation on thissite was started by the Ephorate of Fthiotida underthe direction of Kyparissi-Apostolika in 2001, andinformally since 2009 and formally since 2010 con-tinues under the direction of Kyparissi andHamilakis (from 2018, under the direction ofKyparissi, Hamilakis and Tsamis). Two rectangular


634


https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271



buildings have been unearthed in their entirety whileothers are only partially preserved. Spaces betweenbuildings seemed to have been intensively usedand included paved courtyards which may havebeen partially covered, as suggested by a series ofpost-holes. There were also some elaborate hearths,with a concentration of figurines and quern-stonesaround them, and several pits. The open areas wereextremely rich in finds, including pottery, faunalremains and other feasting paraphernalia (cf.Hamilakis & Kyparissi-Apostolika 2012; Hamilakiset al. 2017; Kyparissi-Apostolika 2003). Various cat-egories of data are currently under analysis andstudy, including a large and diverse collection ofclay figurines, numbering more than 400, found indiverse contexts and locations across the site.

The figurines of KM constitute the largest singleassemblage of Neolithic figurines in Greece and oneof the largest in southeastern Europe. One of themain issues with figurine assemblages is that theyusually lack adequate contextual data and haverarely been examined with analytical and computa-tional methods, while most of them are only access-ible to researchers and the public through printedpublications (i.e. as 2D images and text narratives).In our case, the contexts of the KM figurines weremeticulously recorded, providing a unique oppor-tunity to study these objects thoroughly and answerquestions about their sensorial biographies, theiragency, and entanglement with humans. Clay figur-ines are found in a diversity of indoor and outdoorcontexts, and no caches or very large, deliberate con-centrations have been noted to date. While a detailedanalysis of spatial distribution and patterning is cur-rently being conducted, there seem to be some con-centrations of figurines around features such ashearths (although in numbers less than 10), whereasclay figurines have been found in the stone founda-tions of building walls or inside post-holes.

Our petrographic study indicates that they weremade using local clay (cf. Hamilakis et al. 2017),although circulation within the same densely popu-lated region cannot be excluded. In addition to severalwell-known forms, there are many forms that seem todepict hybrid, human–animal (especially bird-like)entities, as well as imaginary beings, rendering a gen-eric and commonly found description of such objectsas anthropomorphic (as opposed to conventionallyzoomorphic ones) problematic. Many house modelswere also found (included here with the clay figur-ines). Most of the figurines are found fragmented(exhibiting mostly old breaks as opposed to recentexcavation damage) and in many cases fragmentationseems to have been deliberate, since the figurines have

been broken at a rather robust point, along the verticalaxis, or by multiple percussion or snapping actions(see Chapman & Gaydarska 2007; see also below).Many preserve incised and painted decoration.Most, especially the smallest ones, were made usingthe single core technique with one cylindrical part atthe centre around which the rest of the figurineparts were built. Larger ones were made using thecomposite technique: body parts were made separ-ately, most probably using separate cores, and thenassembled together. There are c. 40 cases wherehuman fingerprints have been preserved. It is alsointeresting that some of the fingerprints seem inten-tionally erased. A separate study of the fingerprintsis ongoing.

It is the first time that such a rich assemblagehas been recorded and analysed using a combinationof conventional recording methods, such as multi-faceted archaeological drawing and photography,as well as ceramic petrography, Structure fromMotion, 3D scanning, Reflectance TransformationImaging and Multispectral Photography. Digitalmethods allowed us not only to document the figur-ines in three dimensions, but also to analyse furthersubtle surface details, including fingerprints, colour,decoration and other surface characteristics that arenot always apparent or clear to the naked eye.Most importantly, they gave us the opportunity toexplore the sensorial dimension of figurine makingand using, in the past and the present.

Case studies

Three-dimensionality: from the physical to the digital andbackStructure from Motion (SfM) is a method for produ-cing very detailed 3D models which correspond tothe properties of the real objects, i.e. geometry, tex-ture/colour and accurate measurements, by takingdigital photographs from multiple positions andangles (for best practice, see Sapirstein & Murray2017). It has been applied to a wide range of datasets,including archaeological trenches (Dellepiane et al.2013), buildings and landscapes (Green et al. 2014)and objects (Kersten & Lindstaedt 2012; Porter et al.2016). More than 100 figurines, including a fewhouse models, have been modelled so far bymeans of SfM. These models have been uploadedto Sketchfab (https://sketchfab.com/figurines_koutrouloumagoula), an online repository and 3Dinteractive viewer.1 We are currently in the processof adding annotations to the objects, thus allowingusers to learn specific information about the figur-ines. As our research progresses, these will be


635


https://sketchfab.com/figurines_koutrouloumagoula



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271



enhanced with further information, images and linksto parallels and other resources. We envisage thischannel as a 3D scholarly edition (cf. Schreibman &Papadopoulos 2019) that will move away from con-ventional two-dimensional and often monochromefinds catalogue publications.

The 3D models enable a rotating view and allowinteractive close-up views, by exposing the minutedetails of the fabric of figurines, their texture, techno-logical processes and post-production treatment,including clay composition and inclusions, firingtreatment and firing-induced colour, incisions andother surface modifications. The three-dimensionalrendering of figurine 2010/104-21, which depicts asitting female (Fig. 4: https://skfb.ly/6yWCO), hasfine incisions above the waistline as well as on thelegs to denote body fat. Although the left arm ismissing, a fragment of the hand still attached to thepubic triangle indicates that both arms were restingon that part of the body, accentuating the vaginathat is prominently exhibited. Attention to this areais also directed by the vertical and oblique linearbands of white pigment. On both arms, the figurinepreserves small circular depressions, possibly indi-cating some form of body decoration, perhaps tattoo-ing or scarification.

The interactive 3D model activates and engen-ders the sense of tactile visuality, a rich, synaestheticexperience that is not recognized by our conventionalmodernist western sensorium. The surface of theobject becomes a landscape in relief, whereby its con-tours can be traced through tactile vision, but alsokinaesthetically, through movement: not only themovement of the object on the screen, but also themovement of the whole human body through thisterrain. By zooming in the upper part of the figur-ine’s right arm, we can feel the small cavities thatthe maker created with a small tool, possibly astraw, to denote body decoration. It is probably thesame tool that was used to create the two round shal-low holes to denote the breasts, and to remove thinstrips of clay from the belly, the glutes and the legsto denote the waistline, the pubic triangle and skinfolds. Cavities, such as the ones denoting breasts par-ticularly, acquire depth through this three-dimensional rendering. There may be the case thatsuch holes were meant to accommodate inlaid, per-haps perishable features (cf. Insoll et al. 2016).

By rotating the figurine, it is clear that someparts of the body were meant to be visible andsome not. The figurine was probably part of a com-posite artefact. This is suggested by the fact that itis only the front and the sides which are incisedand painted and not the back (which is smoothed

and polished but otherwise undecorated), as wellas the fact that the figure does not sit on the floor,as is often the case, especially with female figurines,but on an elevated surface with the legs hanging.This could not have been a chair or stool, since inthese cases the furniture is part of the whole claycomposition and not a separate artefact.

The fragmentation pattern is of particular inter-est. The right leg has been broken off just below theknee, in an area which is particularly robust, makingaccidental breakage unlikely. The left arm is also bro-ken from high up, and part of the left lower leg isalso missing, but it is perhaps the missing head,which gives the clearest indication that we dealwith deliberate fragmentation: the head has beencarefully snapped from the base of the neck, leavinga concave depression on the torso. The texture of thisnegative imprint and the care and attention appliedto this fragmentation process can be best appreciatedthrough rotation and close-ups, and the viewingfrom many and oblique angles that this 3D modelcan offer (Fig. 5: https://skfb.ly/6yWCO).

The bottom has been pushed inwards, possiblyagainst the surface that it was attached to or with themaker’s hand, to create the cavity to make it fit on themissing surface. When observing the figurine fromabove (see top right image in Fig. 5), it is strikinghow well the maker gives the sense that the armshold or rest on the belly, whereas the breasts seemintentionally absent. By gaining the opportunity toobserve the artefact from viewpoints that wouldnot be normally depicted in conventional modes ofrendering, both archaeologists/analysts and the laypublic can gain a sensorial and embodied knowledgeof the object which is not possible through staticmonochromatic renderings, not even by pure textualdescriptions. The handling of 3D prints of the modelsenhances such sensorial knowledge.

We have 3D printed 42 figurines and a housemodel (Fig. 6) and have already started using themin undergraduate and postgraduate teaching atBrown University (USA) and Maynooth University(Ireland) and in discussions with PhD candidatesabout topics such as figurines and 3D printing, butalso about the aura of the digital and its physicaltransformation, materiality and physical interaction,and even Human–Computer Interaction. They werealso used in a Masterclass organised in MaynoothUniversity in September 2016 as a means to promptparticipants to think about the creation of user-friendly and intuitive web interfaces for figurine col-lections, as well as to form the basis for creatingsmart replicas with sensors that would enable digit-ally enhanced tangible interactions.


636


https://skfb.ly/6yWCO




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271



While several—but not all—of the features andprocesses discussed above can be detected by arch-aeological analysis when handling the actual arte-facts and performing a sensorial analysis on them,such direct and sustained engagement with thematerial is constrained by time and by logistic andbureaucratic procedures. Moreover, such sensorialappreciation is limited to the privileged researcherwith direct access to the material. 3D modellingand printing enable the researcher to extend suchhandling in space and time, transfer it to the

classroom and open it up to many others, includingstudents and various sectors of the public.

Texture: from fingerprints and brush strokes to touchEvoking, via a digital interface, the experience of thetexture and feel of the clay when modelling is a greatchallenge, even today. Voxel 3D sculpting and mod-elling software packages are flourishing in the mar-ket; some even include haptic styluses with tactilefeedback. But when it comes to evoking theexperience of touching, processing, tempering and

Figure 4. Figurine 2010/104-21 depicting a sitting female, probably part of a composite artefact (max. height 6.8 cm/max. width 3.95 cm/max. length 3.65cm). (Photographs and processing: F. Ifantidis. Post-processing/assembling:C. Papadopoulos.)

Figure 5. Close-ups of figurine 2010/104-21 emphasizing surface details, such as bodily decoration, skins folds andintentional fragmentation. (3D model and images: C. Papadopoulos.)


637


https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271



modelling clay, archaeologists have resorted toexperiential processes capable of revealing the affor-dances of such intimate encounters between the sub-stance of clay and the human hand (e.g. Sofaer 2015,38–9). Touching the surface texture of an ancient fig-urine is, most of the time, an impossible task. Thepublic is usually confronted with glass boxes and fig-urines are to be contemplated at a distance; 3Dprints, as we have argued here, have the capacityto evoke three-dimensionality and some sense oftouch, but fall short in evoking the tactile texture ofa fired clay object, primarily because they are madeof materials that feel quite different to clay. Thiscould be overcome with replicas made of clay but,of course, these would not retain the same qualitiesas the ‘originals’, as each is a unique creative instancein its own right. For researchers, it is usually duringthe very moment of recovery when the figurine maybe handled, its surface texture examined and feltthrough touch; beyond the moment of recovery,once figurines are passed on for conservation andmuseum accession, the researchers’ experience of fig-urines is most commonly mediated by latex gloves.In this process, tactile texture gets lost, not onlydepriving the public and the researcher alike of thetactile experience of Neolithic figurines, but also

preventing them from evoking the tactile affordancesof figurines as they were made, transformed andtouched by past human hands.

In this context, the role of visual texture (seeabove), which we redefine here as a synaestheticexperience involving both tactility, motion/kinaesthesia and tactile visuality, becomes seminalwhen studying and recording figurines with conven-tional methods. In the case of the KM figurines, thisentailed careful and prolonged handling and exam-ination of their surfaces with magnifying glass andraking light, leading to the identification (byHamilakis) of several human fingerprints. Becauseof their subtlety, these fingerprints, as well as othervery fine marks associated with the creation of thefigurines’ surfaces, were difficult to visualize orrecord.

The study of fingerprints on archaeologicalobjects has gained traction in the last few years(e.g. Branigan et al. 2002; Hruby 2007; Sanders2015; see also the Journal on Ancient Fingerprints).Stinson (2004), for example, analysed fingerprintsfrom a large corpus of Hohokam clay figurines inan attempt to identify the sex of the individualswho used them. Different digital methods, primarilylaser scanning that produces measurable 3D models,

Figure 6. 3D prints of figurines found at Koutroulou Magoula, Greece. (Photograph: Darcy Hackley. 3D modelling andimage processing: C. Papadopoulos. 3D printing: i.materialise.com)


638


https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271



have been applied for the recording and visualiza-tion of fingerprints (see e.g. Lapp & Nicoli 2014,who extracted and identified a left-hand thumbprintfrom a Classic Nabatean lamp sherd, or Mara et al.2010, who recorded a series of fingerprints bymeans of structured light scanning). Despite thepotential of fingerprint marks and ridge breadthmeasurements to provide information about the age(and possibly sex) of those who participated in themaking of the figurines (Kamp et al. 1999), this hasnot yet been pursued from this kind of digital record-ing. While it is clear that 3D scanning technologiesare capable of producing outputs of micron reso-lution, which have great potential for the study offingerprints, and more generally for the visualizationof very faint surface marks, these techniques are stillquite expensive, require specialist knowledge, andproduce very large, difficult to manage files.

How to convey the intimate, affective experi-ence of the researcher as s/he explores in detail thesurface of a figurine with a magnifying glass and rak-ing light? How to evoke the sensorial experience ofpast makers and handlers of clay and figurines-in-the-making? Are there techniques that excel in therendering of visual texture, and that are at thesame time affordable, that could aid us in this pur-suit? Here is where we believe RTI (ReflectanceTransformation Imaging) has enormous potential,as it is an affordable, easy-to-implement digitalimaging method that is capable of creating veryhigh resolution photorealistic visualizations of tex-ture detail, using 2.5D information extracted fromthe 3D reflectance properties of objects (Mudgeet al. 2005). RTI has been used in a wide range of cul-tural ‘heritage’ objects where this level of detail isrequired, especially in conservation, but also inarchaeology, such as palimpsests, coins, paintings,modern graffiti, prehistoric art, to analyse makingand reworking surface marks, to document condi-tions, or identify conservation needs(Díaz-Guardamino et al. 2015; Earl et al. 2010; Joneset al. 2016; Kotoula 2015; Kotoula & Kyranoudi 2013).

RTI enhances the perception of subtle surfacedetails related to the process of (re)making, the inter-action between clay and maker(s)/handler(s), bring-ing to the forefront the sensorial and especiallytactile dimension of making. RTI, in this case throughthe RTI Viewer, also affords experiences akin to thoseof the researcher when s/he explores the surface/skin of the figurine and in that process discoversinnumerable marks: the interactive play with lightand shadows reveals partial fingerprints, very faintbrush strokes, soft and rough surfaces, etc. These sen-sorial experiences, based on visual texture and the

interplay with light, can be reached by researchersand the public remotely. If sensorial archaeology isabout presences, and not representations (cf.Hamilakis 2013, 12), then the detailed interactivevisualization of fingerprints and other marks offigurine-making through RTI make the presencingof specific past peoples more palpable, and moreaffective. Features and affinities of their skin, the lar-gest bodily organ, and the interface between thebody and the world become sensorially prominent,enabling affective, skin-to-skin connections amongstcontemporary researchers, lay people and past socialactors.

Although we tend to assign prints on clayobjects to their makers, we should consider the pos-sibility of figurine making as a collaborative oreven communal act, during which there were manycreators, helpers, people who handled the wet objectto observe it, fix it, or reshape it, the person who putit in the kiln, and other people who might have beeninvolved intentionally or by coincidence in themanufacturing process (Králík & Nejman 2007).The partial fingerprints we identified are direct testi-monies of people involved in figurine making. Also,the intersection between fingerprints and marks ofbrush strokes indicates another stage in their making:figurine finish in some cases entailed smoothing,including erasing visible fingerprints, and brushingthe surface as part of the making process.

A sample of 35 figurines was selected to berecorded by means of Highlight RTI (H-RTI), a cost-effective and flexible method for RTI capture (for adetailed description, see Díaz-Guardamino &Wheatley 2013). After the dataset was processedwith the free and open-source RTIBuilder developedby Cultural Heritage Imaging (http://culturalherita-geimaging.org/), the resulting files were viewed viathe free RTI Viewer, which enables the interactivevisualization and exploration of RTI files by chan-ging zoom levels, manipulating the lighting directionand applying a broad range of per-pixel transforma-tions to enhance the visualization of texture details.2

RTI was capable of capturing very subtle sur-face marks, including fingerprints, in great detail.The fingerprints seem to be ‘chance prints’(Cummins 1941) that were unintentionally createdin the process of handling the clay and mouldingthe figurine, although we cannot reject the possibilityof having identifying prints (or, as Cummins callsthem, ‘token finger marks’) that were intentionallyleft to mark the relationship of the maker or handlerwith the object. Most of the fingerprint areas seem tohave been intentionally erased as part of the smooth-ing of the figurine surface, which in some instances


639


http://culturalheritageimaging.org/



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271



was done with a brush, as indicated by the marks ofvery fine brush strokes identified (see Fig. 1, 10, 11,and Videos 2 https://doi.org/10.26300/kdf1-vz75and 3 https://doi.org/10.26300/b7rk-bn47 in theonline supplementary material). In one case, brushstrokes seem to be in the process of erasing thetrace of a fingerprint (Fig. 11). This may indicatethat chance prints were erased during the treatmentof the whole figurine surface before firing and/orthat they were especially targeted so as to removeany traces of their handlers.

For the bird-shaped figurine 2012/640-07(Fig. 7; https://skfb.ly/6yWXL; RTI file https://doi.org/10.26300/0b9t-rd39), RTI enhanced theidentification of a fingerprint on its head (Fig. 8).This is one of the few cases where an almost intactfingerprint has been preserved, possibly indicatingintentionality in its making, especially given thatcoarse clay makes it more difficult to create an iden-tifiable fingerprint (Cummins 1941). On the otherhand, given that this figurine is only partiallysmoothed and badly fired and that the shape of thehead is rather rough and approximate, we may bedealing with the outcome of experimentation orlearning. Although we are not in the position toknow if this is the fingerprint of the maker or of acurious individual that intervened in the process,there is a possibility that it was made not only bylightly touching the figurine when observing it ormoving it to a place to dry or to get fired, but afterapplying some pressure so as to leave a ‘token fingermark’. Exploring this surface with the RTI Viewerthrough the movement of light and changing filtersgives a more complete sense to what we are tryingto convey and communicates the affective experienceof the researcher when exploring this surface. Thefingerprint is readily visible in the Default mode(see Video 1 https://doi.org/10.26300/xh2h-7t62).If we apply the Diffuse Gain filter, the fingerprint

is more clearly visible, especially when moving thelight, while the Specular Enhancement reveals thedepth of the marks (Fig. 8), indicative of the pressureexerted to create the print. If we zoom in and applythe filter Normal Unsharp Masking, an even moredetailed visualization of the texture is revealed.Here, colour and minute details of the clay andhow they relate to the fingerprint become apparent.Finally, the Luminance Unsharp Masking filter letsus discover even more minute texture details con-tinuing a process of affective discovery akin to thatof the researcher when using a magnifying glassand raking light from different directions.

On the other hand, in the case of figurine 2009/TH1-19 (Fig. 9; https://skfb.ly/6yXxK; also seeFigure 1; RTI files: https://doi.org/10.26300/w6te-wk41; https://doi.org/10.26300/9c29-7b15), theidentified partial fingerprint on its right eye(Fig. 10; Video 2 https://doi.org/10.26300/kdf1-vz75) speaks of the manufacturing process duringwhich a small lump of clay is formed separatelyfrom the figurine body. We should imagine that themaker holds with the fingers of his/her one handthe figurine head, while with the other hand s/heuses the tips of the fingers to put in place the plasticeye. The visualization of the RTI file in the RTIViewer is akin to a process of affective discovery bywhich we visualize more and more details of the sur-face of the figurine by changing the direction of thelight and the filters, zooming in and out. When weapply the Specular Enhancement and the NormalUnsharp Masking filters, we can readily see themicrotopography of the partial fingerprint (Video 2https://doi.org/10.26300/kdf1-vz75). The makerexerted pressure with his/her fingers to attach itsecurely to the body and more specifically to thebeak/nose. The Luminance Unsharp Masking filterreveals, again, an increasing number of details onthe surface of this figurine: subtle marks of brushing,small lumps of clay and the roughness of the surface.A landscape full of traces speaks to the viewer ofhow human hands shaped, smoothed, worked theclay before firing. On the other side of the figurine(see Figure 12 and Video 3 https://doi.org/10.26300/b7rk-bn47), more details such as fine brushstrokes are revealed, including, on the SpecularEnhancement mode, another possible partial finger-print just below the left eye.

Colour: painting the bodyThe detection and visualization of pigment-basedcolour is seminal to the study of figurines. For astart, it results in a different, richer sensorial appreci-ation of the objects, adding further layers of cultural

Figure 7. Bird-shaped figurine 2012/640-07 thatpreserves a fingerprint on its head (max. height 2.5 cm/max. width 2.15 cm/max. length 1.85 cm). (Photographsand processing: F. Ifantidis. Post-processing/assembling:C. Papadopoulos.)


640


https://doi.org/10.26300/kdf1-vz75

https://doi.org/10.26300/b7rk-bn47

https://skfb.ly/6yWXL

https://skfb.ly/6yWXL

https://doi.org/10.26300/0b9t-rd39


https://doi.org/10.26300/xh2h-7t62

https://skfb.ly/6yXxK

https://skfb.ly/6yXxK

https://doi.org/10.26300/w6te-wk41


https://doi.org/10.26300/9c29-7b15






https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271



meaning to them, given the multi-faceted signifi-cance of colour (cf. Jones & MacGregor 2002).Colour effects can be and were achieved throughthe selection, preparation and firing of clay, and theinhabitants of Koutroulou Magoula were particularlykeen to achieve a variety of colour shades, carefullymanipulating the clay preparation and mostly the fir-ing process. But the use of pigments does not onlyallow us to understand an additional technologicalprocess and another stage in the crafting of theseobjects; it also provides information on decorativedetails that would have been otherwise missed, ornot clearly understood.

Multispectral Photography (MP) was applied toa selection of figurines in order to identify and fur-ther enhance faded colour traces. MP captures thespectral signature of materials over different regionsof the electromagnetic spectrum ranging from visible

(390–700 nm) to ultraviolet and infrared. The latterhas great potential for the study and conservationof artefacts that include layers of information or

Figure 9. Figurine 2009/TH1-19 (max. height 3.3 cm/max. width 1.35 cm/max. length 2 cm). (Photographs andprocessing: F. Ifantidis. Post-processing/assembling:C. Papadopoulos.)

Figure 8. Figurine 2012/640-07. Snapshot of the visualization through the RTI Viewer of the fingerprint identified onthe head of the figurine. Enhancement with computational algorithms in the following modes (from upper left to bottomright): Default, Diffuse Gain, Specular Enhancement, and Normals Visualization. Also see RTI file: https://doi.org/10.26300/0b9t-rd39 (by M. Diaz-Guardamino).


641




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271



multiple modifications (e.g. Bendada et al. 2015;Easton et al. 2011; Fischer & Kakoulli 2006). A modi-fied DSLR camera (Nikon D700) along with specialfilters that isolate particular regions of the spectrum(daylight, infrared and ultraviolet) were used tophotograph 16 figurines with degraded remains ofpainting. The aim was to enhance the perceptionof the pigments preserved on their surfaces.Decorrelation stretch (http://www.dstretch.com/)was applied to near-ultraviolet and near-infraredimages to stretch colour differences and enhancethe visualization of very faint, or barely visible tothe naked eye, preserved pigments.

In the case of the sitting female figurine of thesquatting type (Fig. 13; https://skfb.ly/DXZJ), MP

photography allowed us to detect and illustrate dec-orative patterns that were not visible, or not clearlyvisible, on the 3D model produced through the SfMtechnique (compare the model on Sketchfab withthe image shown in Figure 13). While at the lowerback of this figurine a pattern of red vertical bandsis visible even with the naked eye, other decorativedetails, such as the belt, the vertical bands on theupper part of the body and the collar around theneck, were clearly detected and illustrated onlywith this technique.

The decorative details detected via MPI allowus to hypothesize that the intention of the crafts-person here was perhaps to depict elements of adress through these fine traces. If so, however, the

Figure 10. Figurine 2009/TH1-19. Snapshot of the visualization through the RTI Viewer of the partial fingerprintidentified on the right eye of the figurine and brush strokes on the hairdo, to the left of the eye. Enhancement withcomputational algorithms in the following modes (from upper left to bottom right): Default, Diffuse Gain, SpecularEnhancement, and Normals Visualization. Also see RTI files: https://doi.org/10.26300/w6te-wk41; https://doi.org/10.26300/9c29-7b15 (by M. Diaz-Guardamino).


642


http://www.dstretch.com/

http://www.dstretch.com/

https://skfb.ly/DXZJ

https://skfb.ly/DXZJ


https://doi.org/10.26300/9c29-7b15

https://doi.org/10.26300/9c29-7b15

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271



intention had not been to cover the body: fine inci-sions on the clay above the waistline are meant todenote body fat, and a frontal view indicates thatbody parts such as the breasts, the pregnant belly

and the belly button, and the vagina were promin-ently exhibited, and accentuated by details such asthe position of hands: the right hand is shown touch-ing the right breast, whereas the left hand is shown

Figure 11. Figurine 2009/TH1-19. Snapshot of the visualization through the RTI Viewer of the fine vertical andhorizontal brush strokes identified on the neck of the figurine. Enhancement with computational algorithms in thefollowing modes (from upper left to bottom right): Default, Diffuse Gain, Specular Enhancement, and NormalsVisualization (by M. Diaz-Guardamino).

Figure 12. Figurine 2011/703-07 of a sitting female of the squatting type (max. height 6.3 cm/max. width 5.7 cm/max.length 5.3 cm). (Photographs and processing: F. Ifantidis. Post-processing/assembling: C. Papadopoulos.)


643


https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271



touching the belly (Fig. 12). At the same time, theupper legs are also decorated by bands made ofred pigment. An alternative scenario thus is thatthese painted features are not intended to denote ele-ments of dress, but consist merely of bodily decor-ation destined perhaps to direct attention to specificanatomical features such as the neck, the wideback, the waistline, or the robust upper legs.Moreover, the use of red pigment to denote specificfacets of identity such as gender, age, or status, can-not be excluded (cf. Petru 2006).

The very act of painting this body with fine linesof red pigment would have established specific sen-sorial and homological/mnemonic connectionswith other components of material culture, such aspottery and architecture. Among the decorated pot-tery from the site, the red-on-white scheme predomi-nates, featuring abstract and geometric decorativeelements made of red pigment on a white back-ground, whereas in several of the buildingsunearthed, the lower parts of the walls were madeof soft white limestone with bright red (oxidized)

clay as bonding material, likely to have come fromthe burnt buildings belonging to earlier buildingphases. If exposed, such red-white combinationwould have evoked the decorated vessels, as wellas other components of material culture, such asthe figurines with red pigment decoration. A sensor-ial assemblage would thus have been created(Hamilakis 2017), a co-presence (in physical spaceor in memory) of heterogeneous components con-nected by the colour red and the attempt of craftsper-sons to produce the effect of red colour usingpigments as well as oxidized building material; thisburnt material would have provided an additionalmnemonic connection with the ancestral buildingsand their making and unmaking.

Conclusion

Digital archaeology has increasingly attempted torespond to the recent call for multi-sensorial engage-ments with the past, mainly by developing prostheticdevices that trigger isolated sensory interactions; inso doing, it uses ocularcentric paradigms to approachexperience and perception. Given their Cartesianismand the emphasis on abstract, isolated and disem-bodied vision, such attempts have severely limitedthe potential of digital tools to provide new waysof approaching past sensoriality. However, it is notthe medium itself that limits the potential of thedigital, but the framework within which it has beendeployed. Abandoning the Cartesianist, instrumen-talist and deterministic approaches to the digital,we have advocated here a framework grounded onmateriality, multi-sensoriality and affectivity whichcan enable researchers to explore the sensorial affor-dances and affect potential of things, in this case clayfigurines, both in the past and in the present.

The application of a wide range of analyticalmethods for the recording, examination and presen-tation of the figurines from Koutroulou Magoulahas opened new interpretative horizons and alsoensured that study and access to the material willcontinue beyond the physical boundaries of its cur-rent location. Most importantly, both the specialistand the non-specialist can appreciate more thor-oughly and in all their richness and detail the succes-sive stages of human labour and craftsmanship thatwent to each object, labour and skill that often gounnoticed in the conventional renderings that pre-sent a synoptic view of the whole process. This layer-ing process of skill and effort has been at timesdeliberately masked by the maker of the object,when, for example, surface treatment is made tohide fingerprints or the seams between different

Figure 13. Figurine 2011/703-07. The back of thefigurine under the visible spectrum (top), near-infraredcaptures (bottom). Decorrelation stretch in colorspaceLDS (bottom left), and decorrelation stretch in colorspaceYRE (bottom right). Enhancement brings out red pigmentremains. (MSI capture and processing: M. Diaz-Guardamino. Post-processing/assembling:C. Papadopoulos.)


644


https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271



body parts or between the clay core and the rest ofthe figurine. Although the gender and age identityof the figurine makers cannot be defined without fur-ther analysis of the fingerprints (subject to the devel-opment of a robust methodology), the RTIrenderings have provided a sensorial enhancementof clay texture and of the making process, enablingus to appreciate figurines beyond the common dis-cussions on representation, function and meaning.They have engendered a tangible, affective under-standing of the embodied and performative processof figurine making in which touch enabled themoulding of the body of clay, but also left the tracesof the people involved. They also mark the affectiveprocess of discovery, the sensorial impact that theseobject have upon the researcher.

3D, RTI, and multispectral renderings are notmeant to replace multi-sensorial and embodied inter-action with the physical objects themselves, butrather to enhance it. In other words, these technolo-gies are not doing something different from whatmaterial things and technologies have been doingsince humans started using objects: producing arange of complex synaesthetic experiences, engen-dering affective sensorial moments which cannot becontained in and described by the western sensor-ium, with its limited, individuating and enumeratingproperties. The technological apparatus used here,rather than producing dematerialized, ‘virtual’ real-ities, extends the sensorial affordances of thehuman body. It results in new material artefactswhich exist in the real world and which can beengaged and entangled with humans and withother sentient and non-sentient beings. They are notreplicas of the ‘authentic’ object, nor digital surro-gates, but rather creative renderings of their own,that cite performatively the initial departure point,the excavated artefact. Together with it, they partakeof a sensorial assemblage which also includes theresearcher and her memories, desires and aspira-tions, the site and the context in general, and the pre-vious assumptions and interpretations of clayfigurines, amongst others. They also help structure,and are structured by, a distinct, relational sensorialfield within which sensorial and affective experi-ences, knowledges and memories are generated. Inother words, a sensorial approach to digitality,beyond the benefits it can accrue regarding the inter-pretative and affective possibilities of the artefacts forthe researchers and the public alike, can also engen-der an exploration of the ontology and epistemologyof the material world and of the archaeologicalprocess.

Notes

1. Please note that only four models are openly availabledue to the pending publication of the assemblage.Scholars interested in the corpus can get in touchwith the contact author to request access to all the3D models.

2. Readers can explore the RTI files by downloading thesupplementary files from https://doi.org/10.26300/eknv-r892 and opening them in the RTI viewer,which can be downloaded from here: http://cultural-heritageimaging.org/What_We_Offer/ Downloads/View/

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Ephorate ofPalaeoanthropology and Speleology and the Ephorate ofFthiotida and Evrytania for granting access to work onthe assemblage. We would also like to thank all staff mem-bers and students for their work in the KoutroulouMagoula Archaeology and Archaeological Ethnographyproject, and particularly Fotis Ifantidis and KalliopeTheodoropoulou for their photography and illustrationwork on the figurines, respectively. We are also gratefulto Despina Catapoti, Jeremy Huggett and Paul Reilly fortheir comments and suggestions on drafts of this paper.

Funding

We are indebted to The British Academy which providedfunding for this work through its Small Research Grantsscheme (project ‘Corporeal Engagements with Clay: thefigurines from Koutroulou Magoula’, BA/Leverhulmegrant awarded to Hamilakis). Funding for the KoutroulouMagoula Archaeology and Archaeological EthnographyProject in general has been provided by the Institute forAegean Prehistory, the University of Southampton,Brown University, the British School at Athens and theGreek Archaeological Service.

This paper has been published Open Access thanks toa grant by the Scholars’ Association of the AlexanderS. Onassis Public Benefit Foundation awarded toPapadopoulos.

Costas PapadopoulosFaculty of Arts and Social Sciences

University of MaastrichtGrote Gracht 90-926211 SZ Maastricht

NetherlandsEmail: [email protected]

Yannis HamilakisJoukowsky Institute for Archaeology

and the Ancient World


645


https://doi.org/10.26300/eknv-r892

https://doi.org/10.26300/eknv-r892

http://culturalheritageimaging.org/What_We_Offer/Downloads/View/




mailto:[email protected]

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271



Brown University60 George Street

Providence, RI 02912USA

Email: [email protected]

Nina Kyparissi-ApostolikaEphorate of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology of

Southern GreeceGreek Ministry of Culture

34B Ardittou Street11 636 Athens

GreeceEmail: [email protected]

Marta Díaz-GuardaminoDepartment of Archaeology

Durham UniversitySouth Road

Durham DH1 3LEUK

Email: [email protected]

References

Antczak, A. & M. Antczak, 2017. Caribbean, in The OxfordHandbook of Prehistoric Figurines, ed. T. Insoll. Oxford:Oxford University Press. http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199675616.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199675616-e-010

Applbaum, N. & Y.H. Applbaum, 2002. The use of medicalComputed Tomography (CT) in the study of the cer-amic technology of figurines, in Sha’ar Hagolan 1:Neolithic art in context, eds. Y. Garfinkel & M.A. Miller. Oxford: Oxbow, 214–20.

Bailey, D.W., 2005. Prehistoric Figurines: Representation andcorporeality in the Neolithic. New York (NY):Routledge.

Bailey, D.W., 2008. The corporeal politics of being in theNeolithic, in Past Bodies, eds. J. Robb & D. Boric.Oxford: Oxbow, 9–18.

Bailey, D.W., 2014a. Touch and the cheirotic apprehensionof prehistoric figurines, in Sculpture and Touch, ed.P. Dent. London: Ashgate, 27–43.

Bailey, D.W., 2014b. Art//Archaeology//Art: Letting-gobeyond, in Art and Archaeology: Collaborations, conver-sations, criticisms, eds. I. Russell & A. Cochrane.New York (NY): Springer-Kluwer, 231–50.

Bailey, D.W., 2017. Southeast european neolithic figurines:beyond context, interpretation, and meaning, inThe Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Figurines, ed.T. Insoll. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199675616.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199675616-e-040

Bailey, D.W., A. Cochrane & J. Zambelli, 2010. Unearthed: Acomparative study of Jo mon Dogu and neolithic figurines.Norwich: Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts.

Balletti, C., M. Ballarin & F. Guerra, 2017. 3D printing: stateof the art and future perspectives. Journal of CulturalHeritage 26, 172–82.

Bateman, J., 2006. Pictures, ideas, and things: theproduction and currency of archaeological practice,in Ethnographies of Archaeological Practice:Cultural encounters, material transformations, ed.M. Edgeworth. Lanham (MD): Altamira Press, 68–80.

Beale, G. & P. Reilly, 2017. After virtual archaeology:rethinking archaeological approaches to the adoptionof digital technology. Internet Archaeology 44.https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.44.1

Bello, S.M., I. De Groote & G. Delbarre, 2013. Applicationof 3-dimensional microscopy and micro-CT scanningto the analysis of Magdalenian portable art onbone and antler. Journal of Archaeological Science 40,2464–76.

Bendada, A., S. Sfarra, C. Ibarra-Castanedo, M. Akhloufi, J.P. Caumes, C. Pradere & X. Maldague, 2015.Subsurface imaging for panel paintings inspection:a comparative study of the ultraviolet, the visible,the infrared and the terahertz spectra. Opto-Electronics Review 23(1), 88–99.

Blomster, J.P., 2017. Mesoamerica – Highland Formative(Early to Middle Formative) figurines, in The OxfordHandbook of Prehistoric Figurines, ed. T. Insoll.Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199675616.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199675616-e-013

Branigan, K., Y. Papadatos & D. Wynn, 2002. Fingerprintson early Minoan pottery: a pilot study. Annual of theBritish School at Athens 97, 49–53.

Carabott, P., Y. Hamilakis & E. Papargyriou (eds.), 2015.Camera Graeca: Photographs, narratives, materialities.Farnham: Ashgate.

Chalmers, A. & E. Zányi, 2009. Real Virtuality: Emergingtechnology for virtually recreating reality. University ofWarwick, International Digital Laboratory. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255644587_Real_Virtuality_emerging_technology_for_virtually_recreating_reality (accessed 9 April 2018).

Chantler, M.J. 1994. The Effect of Variation in IlluminantDirection on Texture Classification. PhD thesis,Heriot-Watt University. http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/texturelab/files/publications/phds_mscs/MJC/MJC_Thesis.pdf (accessed 9 April 2018).

Chapman, J., 2000. Fragmentation in Archaeology: People,places, and broken objects in the prehistory of south-eastern Europe. London: Routledge.

Chapman, J. & B. Gaydarska, 2007. Parts andWholes: Fragmentation in prehistoric context. Oxford:Oxbow.

Chrysanthi, A., P. Murrieta-Flores & C. Papadopoulos,2012. Archaeological computing: towards prosthesisor amputation?, in Thinking Beyond the Tool:


646





http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199675616.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199675616-e-010












https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.44.1









https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255644587_Real_Virtuality_emerging_technology_for_virtually_recreating_reality





http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/texturelab/files/publications/phds_mscs/MJC/MJC_Thesis.pdf




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271



Archaeological computing and the interpretative process,eds. A. Chrysanthi, P. Murrieta- Flores &C. Papadopoulos. (BAR International series S2344.)Oxford: Archaeopress, 7–13.

Cochrane, A. & I. Russell, 2014. Interface I: day of the fig-urines, in Art and Archaeology: Collaborations, conversa-tions, criticisms, eds. I. Russell & A. Cochrane.New York (NY): Springer-Kluwer, 51–8.

Counts, D.B., E.W. Averett & K. Garstki, 2016. A fragmen-ted past: (re)constructing antiquity through 3D arte-fact modelling and customised structured lightscanning at Athienou-Malloura, Cyprus. Antiquity90, 206–18.

Cummins, H., 1941. Ancient finger prints in clay. ScientificMonthly 52(5), 389–402.

Day, J. (ed.), 2013. Making Senses of the Past: Toward a sen-sory archaeology. (Occasional paper 40.) Carbondale(IL): Southern Illinois University, Center forArchaeological Investigations.

Dellepiane, M., N. Dell’Unto, M. Callieri, S. Lindgren &R. Scopigno, 2013. Archaeological excavation moni-toring using dense stereo matching techniques.Journal of Cultural Heritage 14, 201–10.

Delvaux, L., H. Hameeuw, A. Van der Perre, et al., 2017.Conservation, IR, UV and 3D-Imaging: The EgyptianExecration Statuettes Project. Final report. Brussels:Belgian Science Policy.

Devlin, K., A. Chalmers & D. Brown, 2003. Predictive light-ing and perception in archaeological representations,in UNESCO ‘World Heritage in the Digital Age’ 30thAnniversary Digital Congress, 15–17 October 2002.http://doc.gold.ac.uk/~mas01kd/publications/unesco_paper.pdf (accessed 9 April 2018).

Díaz-Andreu, M. & C. García Benito, 2015. Acoustic rockart landscapes: a comparison between the acousticsof three levantine rock art areas in MediterraneanSpain. Rock Art Research 32(1), 46–62.

Díaz-Guardamino, M. & C. Morgan, 2019. Human, trans-human, posthuman digital archaeologies: an intro-duction. European Journal of Archaeology. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.26

Díaz-Guardamino, M., L. Garcia-Sanjuán, D. Wheatley &V. Rodríguez Zamora, 2015. RTI and the study ofengraved rock art: a re-examination of the Iberiansouth-western stelae of Setefilla and Almadén de laPlata 2 (Seville, Spain). Digital Applications inArchaeology and Cultural Heritage 2, 41–54.

Díaz-Guardamino, M. & D. Wheatley, 2013. Rock artand digital technologies: the application ofReflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI) and 3Dlaser scanning to the study of Late Bronze AgeIberian stelae. MENGA, Journal of AndalusianPrehistory 4, 187–203.

Di Giuseppantonio Di Franco, P., C. Camporesi,F. Galeazzi & M. Kallmann, 2015. 3D printing andimmersive visualization for improved perception ofancient artifacts. Presence: Teleoperators and VirtualEnvironments 24(3), 243–64.

Di Giuseppantonio Di Franco, P., J.L. Matthews &T. Matlock, 2016. Framing the past: how virtualexperience affects bodily description of artefacts.Journal of Cultural Heritage 17, 179–87.

Dong, J. & M. Chantler, 2004. On the relations betweenthree methods for representing 3D surface texturesunder arbitrary illumination directions, inProceedings of the Fourth International Conference onComputer and Information Technology – CIT 2004,Wuhan, China, 14–16 September 2004, 807–12.https://doi.org/10.1109/CIT.2004.1357294

Dudley, S., 2012. Materiality Matters: Experiencing the dis-played object. (University of Michigan WorkingPapers in Museum Studies 8.) Ann Arbor (MI):University of Michigan.

Earl, G., K. Martinez & T. Malzbender, 2010.Archaeological applications of Polynomial TextureMapping: analysis, conservation and representation.Journal of Archaeological Science 37(8), 2040–50.

Easton, R.L., W.A. Christens-Barry & K.T. Knox, 2011.Spectral image processing and analysis of theArchimedes Palimpsest, in 2011 19th EuropeanSignal Processing Conference, Barcelona, 1440–44.http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7073928&isnumber=7069645

Eve, S., 2017a. A dead man’s nose: using smell to explorethe battlefield of Waterloo, in Designing with Smell:Practices, techniques and challenges, eds. V. Henshaw,K. McLean, D. Medway, C. Perkins & G. Warnaby.New York (NY): Routledge.

Eve, S., 2017b.The embodied GIS. Using mixed reality toexplore multi-sensory archaeological landscapes.Internet Archaeology 44. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.44.3

Eve, S., 2018. Losing our senses, an exploration of 3D objectscanning. Open Archaeology 4, 114–22. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2018-0007

Farbstein, R., 2013. Making art, making society: the socialsignificance of small-scale innovations and experi-mentation in Palaeolithic portable art. World Art 3(1), 23–39.

Farbstein, R. & W. Davies, 2017. Palaeolithic ceramic tech-nology: the artistic origins and impacts of a techno-logical innovation. Quaternary International 441, 3–11.

Fischer, C. & I. Kakoulli, 2006. Multispectral and hyper-spectral imaging technologies in conservation: cur-rent research and potential applications. Studies inConservation 51, sup1, 3–16.

Forouzan, F., J.B. Glover, F. Williams & D. Deocampo,2012. Portable XRF analysis of zoomorphic figurines,‘tokens,’ and sling bullets from Chogha Gavaneh,Iran. Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 3534–41.

Frieman, C. & M. Gillings, 2007. Seeing is perceiving?World Archaeology 39(1), 4–16.

Gant, S. & P. Reilly, 2017. Different expressions of the samemode: a recent dialogue between archaeological andcontemporary drawing practices. Journal of Visual ArtPractice 17(1), 100–120.


647


http://doc.gold.ac.uk/~mas01kd/publications/unesco_paper.pdf



https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.26

https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.26

https://doi.org/10.1109/CIT.2004.1357294

https://doi.org/10.1109/CIT.2004.1357294

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7073928&isnumber=7069645






https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2018-0007





https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271



Garstki, K., 2017. Virtual representation: the production of3D digital artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Methodand Theory 24(3), 726–50.

Gheorghiu, D., 2010. Ritual technology: an experimentalapproach to Cucuteni-Tripolye Chalcolithic figurines,inAnthropomorphic andZoomorphicMiniature Figures inEurasia, Africa andMeso-America: Morphology, material-ity, technology, function and context, eds. D. Gheorghiu& A. Cyphers. (BAR International series S2138.)Oxford: Archaeopress, 61–72.

Gimbutas, M., 1974. The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe.Myths, legends & cult images. Berkeley/Los Angeles:University of California Press.

Gimbutas, M., 1991. The Civilization of the Goddess. The worldof old Europe. San Francisco (CA): Harper.

Green, S., A. Bevan & M. Shapland, 2014. A comparativeassessment of structure from motion methods forarchaeological research. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 46, 173–81.

Halperin, T.C., 2014. Maya Figurines: Intersections betweenstate and household. Austin (TX): University of TexasPress.

Halverson, E.R. & K.M. Sheridan, 2014. The maker move-ment in education. Harvard Educational Review 84(4),495–504.

Hamilakis, Y., 2002. The past as oral history, in ThinkingThrough the Body: Archaeologies of corporeality, eds.Y. Hamilakis, M. Pluciennik & S. Tarlow.New York (NY): Kluwer/Plenum, 121–36.

Hamilakis, Y., 2013. Archaeology and the Senses: Humanexperience, memory, and affect. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Hamilakis, Y., 2017. Sensorial assemblages: affect, memoryand temporality in assemblage thinking. CambridgeArchaeological Journal 27(1), 169–82.

Hamilakis, Y., in press. From fields of discourse to fields ofsensoriality: rethinking the archaeological record, inFar from Equilibrium: An archaeology of energy, lifeand humanity, eds. M. Boyd & R. Doonan. Oxford:Oxbow.

Hamilakis, Y. & A.M. Jones, 2017. Archaeology and assem-blage. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 27(1), 77–84.

Hamilakis, Y., N. Kyparissi-Apostolika, T. Loughlin, et al.,2017. Koutroulou Magoula in Fthiotida, CentralGreece: a middle Neolithic tell site in context, inCommunities, Landscapes, and Interaction in NeolithicGreece, eds. A. Sarris, E. Kalogiropoulou, T. Kalayci& L. Karimali. Ann Arbor (MI): InternationalMonographs in Prehistory, 81–96, 465–7.

Hamilakis, Y. & N. Kyparissi-Apostolika, T. Loughlin,V. Tsamis, J. Cole, C. Papadopoulos & N. Zorzin,2012. Koutroulou Magoula in central Greece: fromthe Neolithic to the present. Antiquity ProjectGallery 86(333). https://www.antiquity.ac.uk/proj-gall/hamilakis333/

Hamilakis, Y., M. Pluciennik & S. Tarlow (eds.), 2002.Thinking Through the Body: Archaeologies of corporeal-ity. New York (NY): Kluwer/Plenum.

Heller, M.A., 1989. Texture perception in sighted and blindobservers. Perception and Psychophysics 45(1), 49–54.

Howes, D. (ed.), 2014. Sensory museology. The Senses &Society 9(3), 259–380.

Hruby, J., 2007. Appendix C: the fingerprints on pottery, inMidea: The Megaron Complex and Shrine Area.Excavations on the lower terraces 1994–1997, ed.G. Walberg. Philadelphia (PA): INSTAP AcademicPress, 481–2.

Hsu, Y. C., S. Baldwin & Y.H. Ching, 2017. Learningthrough making and maker education. TechTrends61(6), 589–94.

Huggett, J., 2004. Archaeology and the new technologicalfetishism. Archeologia e Calcolatori 15, 81–92. http://soi.cnr.it/archcalc/indice/PDF15/05_Hugget.pdf(accessed 9 April 2018).

Insoll, T. (ed.), 2017. The Oxford Handbook of PrehistoricFigurines. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Insoll, T., B. Kankpeyeng & S. Fraser, 2016. Internal mean-ings. Computed tomography scanning of Koma fig-urines from Ghana. African Arts 49(4), 24–33.

Jeffrey, S., 2015. Challenging heritage visualisation: beauty,aura and democratisation. Open Archaeology 1(1).https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2015-0008

Jervis, B., 2018. Assemblage Thought and Archaeology.London/New York: Routledge.

Jones, A.M., A. Cochrane, C. Carter, I. Dawson,M. Díaz-Guardamino, E. Kotoula & L. Minkin,2015. Digital imaging and prehistoric imagery: anew analysis of the Folkton Drums. Antiquity 89,1083–95.

Jones, A.M. & M. Díaz-Guardamino, 2019. Making a Mark:Image and process in Neolithic Britain and Ireland.Oxford/Philadelphia: Oxbow.

Jones, A.M., M. Díaz-Guardamino & R.J. Crellin, 2016.From artefact biographies to ‘multiple objects’: anew analysis of the decorated plaques of the IrishSea region. Norwegian Archaeological Review 49(2),113–33.

Jones, A.M. & G. MacGregor (eds.), 2002. Colouring the Past:The significance of colour in archaeological research.Oxford: Berg.

Jones, S., S. Jeffrey, M. Maxwell, A. Hale & C. Jones, 2017.3D heritage visualisation and the negotiation ofauthenticity: the ACCORD project. InternationalJournal of Heritage Studies 24(4), 333–53.

Joyce, R.A., 1998. Performing the body in Pre-HispanicCentral America. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics33, 147–65.

Joyce, R.A., 2003. Making something of herself: embodi-ment in life and death at Playa de los Muertos,Honduras. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13(2),248–61.

Kaimaris, D., G. Hourmouziadis & P. Patias, 2011. 3D scan-ning and digital processing used in the study of aNeolithic figurine. Applied Geomatics 3(3), 153–7.

Kamp, K.A., N. Timmerman, G. Lind, J. Graybill &I. Natowsky, 1999. Discovering childhood: using


648


https://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/hamilakis333/



http://soi.cnr.it/archcalc/indice/PDF15/05_Hugget.pdf







https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271



fingerprints to find children in the archaeologicalrecord. American Antiquity 64(2), 309–15.

Kantarelou, V., A.G. Karydas, D. Sokaras, et al., 2015. Insitu scanning micro-XRF analyses of gilded bronzefigurines at the National Museum of Damascus.Journal of Analytical Spectrometry 30(8), 1787–98.

Katz, J., 2017.DigitizedMayamusic: the creationof a 3Ddata-base of Maya musical artifacts. Digital Applications inArchaeology and Cultural Heritage 6, 29–37.

Kersten, T.P. & M. Lindstaedt, 2012. Image-based low-costsystems for automatic 3D recording and modelling ofarchaeological finds and objects, in Progress inCultural Heritage Preservation. EuroMed 2012, eds.M. Ioannides, D. Fritsch, J. Leissner, R. Davies,F. Remondino & R. Caffo. (Lecture Notes inComputer Science 7616.) Berlin/Heidelberg:Springer.

Kotoula, E., 2015. Virtualizing Conservation: Exploringand Developing Novel Digital Visualizations forPreventive and Remedial Conservation of Artefacts.PhD thesis, University of Southampton. https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/381464 (accessed 9 April 2018).

Kotoula, E., 2017. Light and its interaction with antiquitiesand works of art: a conservator’s perspective, inOxford Handbook of Light in Archaeology, eds.C. Papadopoulos & H. Moyes. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198788218.013.30

Kotoula, E. & M. Kyranoudi, 2013. Study of ancient Greekand Roman coins using reflectance transformationimaging. E-Conservation Magazine 25, 74–88.

Králík, M. & L. Nejman, 2007. Fingerprints on artifacts andhistorical items: examples and comments. Journal ofAncient Fingerprints 1, 4–15. http://www.ancientfingerprints.org/journal.htm

Kreiter, A., D.J. Riebe, W.A. Parkinson, Á. Peto, M. Tóth,P. Pánczél & E. Bánffy, 2014. Unique in its chaîneopératoire, unique in its symbolism: undressing a fig-urine from the 6th millennium BC Körös culture,Hungary. Journal of Archaeological Science 44, 136–47.

Kuijt, I., 2017. Clay ideas: Levantine Neolithic figurine tra-jectories and intellectual threads, in The OxfordHandbook of Prehistoric Figurines, ed. T. Insoll.Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199675616.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199675616-e-028

Kyparissi-Apostolika, N., 2003. Koutroulou Magoula stoNeo Monastiri (Voria Phthiotida): I apokalypsimias neas, ‘astikis’ architektonikis, neolithikis egka-tastasis’ [Koutroulou Magoula in Neo Monastiri(North Pthiotida): The unearthing of a new ‘urbanarchitecture of a Neolithic settlement’], in ToArchaiologiko Ergo Thessalias kai Stereas Elladas [Thearchaeological work in Thessaly and continentalGreece], 1. Volos: University of Thessaly, 607–17.

Landy, M.S. & N. Graham, 2004. Visual perception of tex-ture, in The Visual Neurosciences, eds. L.M. Chalupa &J.S. Werner. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 1106–18.

Lapp, E. & J. Nicoli, 2014. Exploring 3D modeling, finger-print extraction, and other scanning applicationsfor ancient clay oil lamps. Digital Applications inArchaeology and Cultural Heritage 1(2), 34–44.

Leibhammer, N., 2018. Modalities of meaning: lightand shadow in archaeological images, in OxfordHandbook of Light in Archaeology, eds.C. Papadopoulos & H. Moyes. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198788218.013.32

Lesure, R.G., 2011. Interpreting Ancient Figurines: Context,comparison, and prehistoric art. New York (NY):Cambridge University Press.

Levent, N. & A. Pascual-Leone, 2014. The MultisensoryMuseum: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on touch,sound, smell, memory, and space. Lanham (MD):Rowman & Littlefield.

Ma, J., 2017. Koutroulou Magoula Reinterpreted. https://www.behance.net/gallery/56382709/Koutroulou-Magoula-Reinterpreted (accessed 27 April 2019).

MacGregor, G., 1999. Making sense of the past in the pre-sent: a sensory analysis of carved stone balls. WorldArchaeology 31, 258–71.

Mara, H., S. Krömker, S. Jakob & B. Breuckmann, 2010.GigaMesh and Gilgamesh – 3D multiscale integralinvariant cuneiform character extraction, in VAST –

The 11th International Symposium on Virtual Reality,Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, eds. A. Artusi,M. Joly-Parvex, G. Lucet, A. Ribes & D. Pitzalis.The Eurographics Association. https://doi.org/10.2312/VAST/VAST10/131-138

Massumi, B., 1995. The autonomy of affect. CulturalCritique (31), 83–109.

Meskell, L.M., 2007. Refiguring the corpus at Çatalhöyük,in Material Beginnings: A global prehistory of figurativerepresentation, eds. A.C. Renfrew & I. Morley.Cambridge: McDonald Institute for ArchaeologicalResearch, 137–49.

Meskell, L., 2015. A society of things: animal figurines andmaterial scales at Neolithic Çatalhöyük. WorldArchaeology 47(1), 6–19.

Meskell, L.M., 2017. The archaeology of figurines and thehuman body in prehistory, in The Oxford Handbookof Prehistoric Figurines, ed. T. Insoll. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press. http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199675616.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199675616-e-002

Meskell, L.M. & C. Nakamura, 2005. Çatalhöyük figurines,in Archive Report on the Catalhöyük Season 2005. www.catalhoyuk.com

Miles, J., M. Mavrogordato, I. Sinclair, D. Hinton, R.P. Boardman & G. Earl, 2016. The use of computedtomography for the study of archaeological coins.Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 6, 35–41.

Milner, N., M. Bamforth, G. Beale, et al., 2016. A uniqueengraved shale pendant from the site of Star Carr:the oldest Mesolithic art in Britain. InternetArchaeology 40. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.40.8


649


https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/381464



http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198788218.013.30



http://www.ancientfingerprints.org/journal.htm










https://www.behance.net/gallery/56382709/Koutroulou-Magoula-Reinterpreted





https://doi.org/10.2312/VAST/VAST10/131-138











http://www.catalhoyuk.com

http://www.catalhoyuk.com



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271



Mina, M., 2007. Figurines without sex: people withoutgender?, in Archaeology and Women: Ancient andmodern issues, eds. S. Hamilton, R. Whitehouse &K. Wright. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast Press,263–82.

Mina, M., 2008. Carving out gender in the prehistoricAegean: anthropomorphic figurines of the Neolithicand Early Bronze Age. Journal of MediterraneanArchaeology 21(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/jmea.v21i2.213

Morgan, C. & H. Wright, 2018. Pencils and pixels: drawingand digital media in archaeological field recording.Journal of Field Archaeology 43(2), 136–51.

Morris, C., A. Peatfield & B. O’Neill, 2018. ‘Figures in 3D’:digital perspectives on Cretan Bronze Age figurines.Open Archaeology 4, 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2018-0003

Mudge, M., C.J.P. Voutaz, C. Schroer & M. Lum, 2005.Reflection transformation imaging and virtual repre-sentations of coins from the hospice of the GrandSt. Bernard, in The 6th International Conference onVirtual Reality, Archaeology and Intelligent CulturalHeritage, eds. M. Mudge, N. Ryan & R. Scopigno.Aire-la-Ville: Eurographics Association, 29–39.

Murphy, D., S. Shelley, A. Foteinou, J. Brereton &H. Daffern, 2017. Acoustic heritage and audio cre-ativity: the creative application of sound in therepresentation, understanding and experience ofpast environments. Internet Archaeology 44. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.44.12

Nakamura, C. & L. Meskell, 2009. Articulate bodies: formsand figures at Çatalhöyük. Journal of ArchaeologicalMethod and Theory 16(3), 205–30.

Nanoglou, S., 2005. Subjectivity and material culture inThessaly, Greece: the case of Neolithic anthropo-morphic imagery. Cambridge Archaeological Journal15(2), 141–56.

Nanoglou, S., 2008. Qualities of humanness: materialaspects of Greek Neolithic anthropomorphicimagery. Journal of Material Culture 13(3), 311–34.

Nanoglou, S., 2009. The materiality of representation: apreface. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory16, 157–61.

Opitz, R., 2017. An experiment in using visual attentionmetrics to think about experience and design choicesin past places. Journal of Archaeological Method andTheory 24(4), 1203–26.

Orfanidi, L., 2015. Ermineutikh tis neolithikis eidoloplastikis[Interpretation of Neolithic figurine making].Athens: Kentron Ereunis ths Archaiothtos tisAkadhmias Athinon. (In Greek)

Overholtzer, L., 2017. Mesoamerica—Aztec figurines, in TheOxford Handbook of Prehistoric Figurines, ed.T. Insoll. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199675616.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199675616-e-014

Paliou, E. & D.J. Knight, 2013. Mapping the senses: percep-tual and social aspects of late antique liturgy in SanVitale, Ravenna, in Fusion of Cultures. Proceedings ofthe 38th Annual Conference on Computer Applicationsand Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, CAA 2010,Granada 6–9 April, eds. F. Contreras, M. Farjas & F.J. Melero. (BAR International series 2494.) Oxford:Archaeopress, 229–36.

Paliou, E., D. Wheatley & G. Earl, 2011. Three-dimensionalvisibility analysis of architectural spaces: iconog-raphy and visibility of the wall paintings of Xeste 3(late bronze age Akrotiri). Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 38, 375–86.

Papadopoulos, C. & G. Earl, 2014. Formal three-dimensional computational analyses of archaeo-logical spaces, in Spatial Analysis and Social Spaces:Interdisciplinary approaches to the interpretation of pre-historic built environments, eds. E. Paliou,U. Lieberwirth & S. Polla. Berlin: De Gruyter, 135–65.

Papadopoulos, C., Y. Hamilakis & N. Kyparissi-Apostolika, 2015. Light in a neolithic dwelling:Building 1 at Koutroulou Magoula (Greece).Antiquity 89, 1034–50.

Papantoniou, G., F. Loizides, A. Lanitis & D. Michaelides,2012. Digitization, restoration and visualization ofterracotta figurines from the ‘House of Orpheus’,Nea Paphos, Cyprus, in Progress in Cultural HeritagePreservation, eds. M. Ioannides, D. Fritsch,J. Leissner, R. Davies, F. Remondino & R. Caffo.(Lecture Notes in Computer Science 7616.) Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 543–50.

Pavel, C., C. Suciu, F. Constantin & R. Bugoi, 2013. X-raycomputed tomography investigations of Cucuteniceramic statuettes. Documenta Praehistorica 40, 323–32. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.40.26

Petrie, W.M.F., 1904. Methods and Aims in Archaeology.London: Macmillan & Co.

Petru, S., 2006. Red, black or white? The dawn of coloursymbolism. Documenta Praehistorica 33, 203–8.

Piggott, S., 1965. Archaeological draughtsmanship: princi-ples and practice. Part I: Principles and retrospect.Antiquity 39, 165–76.

Pitts, M., J. Miles, H. Pagi & G. Earl, 2014. HoaHakananai’a: a new study of an Easter island statuein the British Museum. Antiquaries Journal 94,291–321.

Pizzeghello, A., M. Vidale, G. Salemi, V. Tinè & S. Di Pilato,2015. De-constructing terracotta female figurines: aChalcolithic case-study. Interdisciplinaria Archaeolo-gica. Natural Sciences in Archaeology 6(1), 7–17.

Pollalis, C., E.J. Minor, L. Westendorf, W. Fahnbulleh,I. Virgilio, A.L. Kun & O. Shaer, 2018. Evaluatinglearning with tangible and virtual representationsof archaeological artifacts, in Proceedings of the TwelfthInternational Conference on Tangible, Embedded, andEmbodied Interaction (Stockholm, Sweden, March 18–21). New York (NY): ACM, 626–37.


650


http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/jmea.v21i2.213








https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.44.12

https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.44.12

https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.44.12







https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.40.26

https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.40.26

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271



Porter, S.T., M. Roussel & M. Soressi, 2016. A simple photo-grammetry rig for the reliable creation of 3D artifactmodels in the field. Advances in Archaeological Practice4(1), 71–86.

Pye, E. (ed.), 2007. The Power of Touch: Handling objects inmuseums and heritage contexts. Walnut Creek (CA):Left Coast Press.

Rabinowitz, A., 2015. The work of archaeology in the ageof digital surrogacy, in Visions of Substance: 3Dimaging in Mediterranean archaeology, eds. B. Olson& W. Caraher. Grand Forks (ND): The Digital Pressat the University of North Dakota, 27–42.

Reilly, P., S. Todd & A. Walter, 2016. Rediscovering andmodernising the digital Old Minster of Winchester.Digital Applications in Archaeology and CulturalHeritage 3(2), 33–41.

Resch, G., D. Southwick, I. Record & M. Ratto, 2018.Thinking as handwork: critical making with human-istic concerns, in Making Things and DrawingBoundaries. Experiments in the digital humanities, ed.J. Sayers. Minneapolis (MN): University ofMinnesota Press, 149–61.

Sanders, A., 2015. Fingerprints, sex, state, and the organiza-tion of the Tell Leilan ceramic industry. Journal ofArchaeological Science 57, 223–38.

Sapirstein, P. & S. Murray, 2017. Establishing best practicesfor photogrammetric recording during archaeo-logical fieldwork. Journal of Field Archaeology 42(4),337–50.

Schreibman, S. & C. Papadopoulos, 2019. Textuality in 3D.Three-Dimensional (re)constructions as digital schol-arly editions. International Journal of DigitalHumanities Special issue on Digital Scholarly Editing.https://doi.org/10.1007/s42803-019-00024-6

Sears, E.L., 2017. Mesoamerica – Maya, in The OxfordHandbook of Prehistoric Figurines, ed. T. Insoll.Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199675616.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199675616-e-011

Seigworth, G.J. & M. Gregg, 2010. An inventory of shim-mers, in The Affect Theory Reader, eds. M. Gregg &G.J. Seigworth. Durham (NC): Duke UniversityPress, 1–25.

Selmo, D., F. Sturt, J. Miles, et al., 2017. Underwater reflect-ance transformation imaging: a technology for in situunderwater cultural heritage object-level recording.Journal of Electronic Imaging 26(1), 011029. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JEI.26.1.011029

Skeates, R., 2010. An Archaeology of the Senses. PrehistoricMalta. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sloan, R., 2012. Dancing the Flip-Flop. Personal blog.March. http://www.robinsloan.com/note/flip-flop/

Sofaer, J., 2015. Clay in the Age of Bronze: Essays in the archae-ology of prehistoric creativity. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Stevenson, A., 2017. Predynastic Egyptian figurines, in TheOxford Handbook of Prehistoric Figurines, ed. T. Insoll.Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.oxford

handbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199675616.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199675616-e-004

Stewart, K. 2007. Ordinary Affects. Durham (NC): DukeUniversity Press.

Stinson, S.L., 2004. Household Ritual, Gender, andFigurines in the Hohokam Regional System. PhD dis-sertation, University of Arizona.

Talbot, W.H.F., 1844. The Pencil of Nature. London:Longman, Brown, Green & Longmans.

Tarr, M.J., D. Kersten & H.H. Bülthoff, 1998. Why the vis-ual recognition system might encode the effects ofillumination. Vision Research 38(15–16), 2259–75.

Thomas, J., 2008. On the ocularcentrism of archaeology, inArchaeology and the Politics of Vision in a Post-ModernContext, eds. J. Thomas & V.O. Jorge. Newcastle:Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 1–12.

Vassallo, V., 2016. A 3D digital approach to study, analyseand (re)interpret cultural heritage: the case study ofAyia Irini (Cyprus and Sweden), in CAA2015: Keepthe Revolution Going. Proceedings of the 43rd AnnualConference on Computer Applications and QuantitativeMethods in Archaeology, eds. S. Campana,R. Scopigno, G. Carpentiero & M. Cirillo. Oxford:Archaeopress, 227–32.

Vella Gregory, I., 2017. Mediterranean – Sardinia, in TheOxford Handbook of Prehistoric Figurines, ed.T. Insoll. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199675616.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199675616-e-039

Weismantel, M. & L. Meskell, 2014. Substances: ‘followingthe material’ through two prehistoric cases. Journal ofMaterial Culture 19(3), 233–51.

Williams, T.L., 2017. More than just a novelty? Museum vis-itor interactions with 3D printed artifacts. MA thesis,University of Washington. http://hdl.handle.net/1773/39772 (accessed 9 April 2018).

Wilson, P.F., J. Stott, J.M. Warnett, A. Attridge, M.P. Smith& M.A. Williams, 2018. Evaluation of touchable3D-printed replicas in museums. Curator: TheMuseum Journal 60(4), 445–65.

Zányi, E., C. Schroer, M. Mudge & A. Chalmers, 2007.Lighting and Byzantine glass tesserae, inProceedings of Electronic Visualisation and the Arts –

EVA 2007. London, 11–13 July, eds. J. Bowen,S. Keene & L. MacDonald. London: BCS, TheChartered Institute for IT Proceedings of theElectronic Visualisation and the Arts, 22.1–22.8.http://culturalheritageimaging.org/What_We_Do/Publications/eva2007/EVA_2007.pdf (accessed 9April 2018).

Author biographies

Costas Papadopoulos is an Assistant Professor in DigitalHumanities and Culture Studies at Maastricht University,Netherlands. His research spans the development of virtualworlds to interpret societies of the past, to the applicationof computational imaging to analyse material culture, to


651


https://doi.org/10.1007/s42803-019-00024-6








https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JEI.26.1.011029

https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JEI.26.1.011029

https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JEI.26.1.011029

http://www.robinsloan.com/note/flip-flop/

http://www.robinsloan.com/note/flip-flop/













http://hdl.handle.net/1773/39772



http://culturalheritageimaging.org/What_We_Do/Publications/eva2007/EVA_2007.pdf



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271



the use of digital ethnographic methods to evaluate digitalpedagogy and interactive teaching methods. Much of hisscholarship focuses on heritage visualization using a var-iety of 2D and 3D media for quantitative and qualitativestudies. More recently, his research has focused on theshift from the analogue to the digital, its affordances andlimitations, as well as on new forms of social media.

Yannis Hamilakis is the Joukowsky Family Professor ofArchaeology and Professor of Modern Greek Studies atBrown University. His main research and teaching interestsare the sociopolitics of the past, the body and bodily senses,the archaeology of eating and drinking, the ontology andmateriality of photography, archaeology and nationalism,archaeological ethnography and the archaeology ofcontemporary, undocumented migration. Since 2010 hehas been co-directing a major new field project, theKoutroulou Magoula Archaeology and ArchaeologicalEthnography Project. This centres around the excavationof an important, primarily Middle Neolithic tell site in cen-tral Greece, but also includes archaeological ethnography,as well as a range of art projects and a theatre-archaeologyprogramme.

Nina Kyparissi-Apostolika is Emerita Director of theEphorate of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology, Greek

Ministry of Culture and Sports. She has been directingthe excavation of the Middle Neolithic tell siteKoutroulou Magoula since the 2000s (since 2010 withYannis Hamilakis). She has also directed the excavationsat the Middle Neolithic site Imvrou Pigadi (Fthiotida),with pottery kilns, and Theopetra Cave (Thessaly) that pre-serves Middle and Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic andNeolithic deposits. She has published extensively onGreek prehistory.

Marta Díaz-Guardamino is Lecturer in EuropeanPrehistoric Archaeology at Durham University. Herresearch interests are in prehistoric European archaeology,ontological approaches to the past, archaeologies ofmobility, prehistoric art and archaeological visualization,including digital imaging and archaeological repre-sentation. She has studied monumental sculpture,decorated artefacts, and rock art from Iberia, Britainand Ireland, including fieldwork at find-spots of stelaeand statue-menhirs in Iberia. Since 2016 she is ReviewsEditor of the European Journal of Archaeology and co-editor of the section ‘Theory and Interpretation in archae-ology’ of the journal Open Archaeology. She is co-author,with Andrew Meirion Jones, of the book Making a Mark:Image and process in Neolithic Britain and Ireland (Oxbow,2019).


652


https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000271



Digital Sensoriality: The Neolithic Figurines from Koutroulou ......Digital Sensoriality: The...

Documents

Transcript of Digital Sensoriality: The Neolithic Figurines from Koutroulou ......Digital Sensoriality: The...